THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


^^(l^^x^^a^^^ 


x> 


/fo^ 


(\\ 


STATEMENT 


SUBMITTED    BY   THE 


UNITED  STATES  OF   BRAZIL 


PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
OF  AMERICA 


AS   ARBITRATOR 


UNDER  THE  Pf  :>VISIONS  OF  THE  TREATY  CONCLUDED 

SEPTEMBER  7,  I889,  BETWEEN  BRAZIL  AND 

THE  ARGENTINE  REPUBLIC 


VOL  I 


THE   STATEMENT 

(ENGLISH   TRANSLATION) 


NEW  YORK 
1894 


3031S1* 


Zbc  1Rnicl:ecbocl>ec  ipreee 
Devo  iQorit 


Reading 
Ctr.  # 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION 


BRAZIL  AND   THE   ARGENTINE  REPUBLIC, 

SUBMIITED  TO   TIIP:  DECISION   OF    PRESIDENT   CLEVE- 
LAND, OF  THE  UNn^ED  STATES  OF  AlIEKICA, 
AS    ARBITRATOK,    1894. 


^hòn^à 


INTRODUCTORY. 

This  Statement  and  appended  documents  form  six  Vol- 
umes : 

I.  The  Statement  translated  into  English  ; 

II.  The  original  Statement,  in  Portuguese  ; 

III.  Appendix  of  documents  translated  into  English  ; 

IV.  The  original  texts  of  documents,  in  Portuguese  or 
Spanish,  translated  in  Vol.  III. ; 

V.  Thirty-four  maps  preceded  by  a  Notice ; 

VI.  Twenty-nine  larger  maps. 

Three  other  maps  are  inserted  in  this  Vol.  I. 

Each  Volume  has  its  special  Table  of  Contents,  and  at 
the  end  of  this  there  is  an  abridged  Table  of  all  the  docu- 
ments in  the  other  Volumes,  to  facilitate  comparison  be- 
tween the  original  texts  and  their  translation. 

Nearly  all  the  fac-similes  of  maps  collected  in  Volume  V. 
are  sections  of  the  larger  maps  in  Volume  VI.  The  list  at 
the  end  of  this  Volume  I.  gives  the  two  different  numbers 
of  each  map  in  the  two  sets. 

Washington,  February  8,  1894. 


c 


CONTENTS. 


Introductory 


VOLUME  I. 


I. 


Subject  of  the  controversy 
The  present  divisional  Hne 
Disagreement  as  to  the  frontier  between  the  Iguaçu 

and  the  Uruguay 

The  boundary  defended  by  Brazil 

The  boundary  claimed  by  the  Argentine  Republic 

Boundaries  of  the  contested  territory 

Area.     Population 

Treaty  of  Arbitration,  September  7,  1889 

How  the  frontier  shall  be  constituted  according  to  the 

Treaty  of  Arbitration 

II. 

Treaty  of  Madrid,  January  13,  1750     . 

1=.'  Demarcation  (1759-17^0) 

Treaty  of  El  Pardo,  February  12,  1761 

Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  October  i,  1777 

2^.  Demarcation  (1788-1791) 

The  war  of  1801.     Peace  of  Badajoz     . 

The  Treaty  of  1777  void       ... 

Rules  adopted  by  the  Brazilian  Government :  iiti  pos- 
sidetis of  the  period  of  the  Independence  and 
such  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  1777  as  do  not 
conflict  with  that  uti  possidetis      .         .         .         . 


PAGE 

iii 


CONTENTS. 


Argentine  Independence,  1810 

Brazilian  Independence,  1822        ..... 

Tiic  question  of  the  nullity  or  validity  of  the  Treaty 
of  1777  is  of  no  practical  importance  in  the  pres- 
ent controv^ersy      ....... 

The  right  of  Brazil  based  upon  the  colonial  7iti  possi- 
detis       ......... 

But  Brazil  accepts  all  the  historical  documents  upon 
which  the  Argentine  Republic  seeks  to  found  its 
claim       ......... 

III. 

First  line  of  demarcation  agreed  upon  at  Tordesillas 
(1494).     Its  location       ...... 

Both  the  Spaniards  and  Portuguese  overstepped  the 
line  of  Tordesillas  ...... 

Unfounded  accusations  ...... 

How  Brazil  as  it  is  now  was  formed      .... 

Occupation  of  the  left  bank  of  the  River  Plate  by  the 
Portuguese  (1680)  ...... 

Disputes  and  hostilities         ...... 

Treaty  of  Utrecht  (1715)       ...... 

New  disputes  and  hostilities.     Armistice  of  1737 

IV. 

Portugal  and  Spain  recognize  the  necessity  for  a 
Treaty  of  Limits  .... 

Treaty  of  Madrid,  January  13,  1750     . 

Natural    boundaries  and    iiti  possidetis.     Mutual  ces 
sions        ....... 

The  divisional  line  of  1750 

Between  the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu 

Examination  of  Article  V.  of  the  Treaty 

The  Pepiry  was  already  the  boundary  of  Brazil  since 
the  XVIIth  century        .... 

The  Seven  Oriental  Missions 


PAGE 

12 

13 


13 
13 

14 

15 

17 
18 

19 

21 
21 
22 
22 


23 
23 

24 
32 

33 
33 

37 
39 


CONTENTS.  Vil 

PAGE 

The' manuscript  Map  of  1749,  made  in  duplicate  at 
Lisbon,  and  called  "  Map  of  the  Courts  "  ;  the 
three  copies  made  at  Lisbon  in  175 1,  and  the 
three  made  at  Madrid.  Declarations  written  by 
the  Plenipotentiaries  on  the  two  originals  and  on 
the  six  copies  .......       40 

V. 

General    Instructions    to    the  Demarcating  Commis- 
sioners, signed  at  Madrid,   January  17,    1751         .       54 
The  Commissioners       .......       59 

Opposition  to  the  Treaty      ......       60 

Insurrection  of  the  Guaranys  and  war  of  the  Missions.       61 
The  Joint  Commission  which  made  the  demarcation 

in  1759-1760 62 

An  invention  of  1789     .......       63 

Transformations  through  which  the  invention  of  1789 

passed     .........       64 

The  invention  of  1789  destroyed  by  the  production  of 
the  Special  Instruction  of  July  27,  1758,  now  found 
at  Simancas  .......       66 

One  of  the  documents  quoted  in  support  of  the  Ar- 
gentine pretension  never  existed  •         •         •       75 
The  demarcation  of  1759.     Ascent  of  the  Uruguay  in 

search   of  the  Pepiry     ......       ^6 

River  Mbororé,  the  limit  of  the  Spanish  occupation    .       ^6 
River  Itacaray,  the  extreme  point  of  the  fluvial  jour- 
neys of  the  Guaranys  of  Misiones  .         .         .       "JJ 
Ancient  look-out  to  watch  the  movements  of  the  Bra- 
zilians of  S.   Paulo           ......       78 

The   guide  Arirapy.      His   previous    journey  to  the 

Pepiry     .........       78 

Jaboty-Guaçú  or  Pepiry-Mini         .....       79 

Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay  .....       79 

River  Pepiry  or  Pequiry        ......       80 

Doubts  of  the  Spanish  Commissioner  ...       80 


VIU 


CONTENTS. 


Journey  up  the  Uruguay  to  ascertain  the  positions  of 

the  Apitereby  and  Uruguay-Pita 
Rivers  Apitereby  and  tJruguay-Pitã  (the  second  river 

to  which  this  name  was  given) 
Map  of  the   Brazilian-Argentine    Joint    Commission 

Two  historical  errors  to  be  corrected 
Signs  of  the  old  Brazilian  rule       .... 
Small  Falls  of  Fortaleza        ..... 
Conference  of  March  7,  1759.     Statement  made  by  the 

I    Spanish  Commissioner 

All  agree  that  the  river  pointed  out  by  the  guide  is 

the   Pepiry  of  the  Treaty.     They  return  to  the 

mouth  of  the  Pepiry  ..... 
Act  of  identification  of  the  Pepiry  (March  8,  1759) 
Inscription:  "  R.  F.  Anno  de  1759" 
Latitude  of  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry 
The  Longitude  could  not  be  determined  in  1759.    De 

termination  of  1788,  of  1887  and  1889 
Survey  of  the  course  of  the  Pepiry   in    1759  by  the 

geographers  of  Portugal  and  Spain 
Affluent  Pepiry-Mini     .... 
The  geographers,  unable  to  reach   the  principal  head 

water,  return  .... 

Section  of  the  Pepiry  explored 
Section  of  the  Pepiry  unexplored 
The  Commissioners  determine  to  come  down  the  Uru 

guay  in  accordance  with  Art.  6  of  the  Special   In 

struction  ..... 

Journey  to  the  Paraná 
Arrival  at  the  Iguaçu 
Great  Falls  of  the  Iguaçu     . 
Discovery  of  the  River  S.  Antonio 
It  is  determined  to  explore  the  S.  Antonio 
Survey  of  the  S.  Antonio     . 
Affluent  S.  Antonio-Mini 
Supposed  source  of  the  Pepiry 
Source  of  the  S.  Antonio 


82 

83 
84 
85 

86 


88 
93 
94 

94 

95 
96 

96 
98 
98 


99 
100 

lOI 
lOI 

102 
103 
104 
104 

105 
106 


CONTENTS.  IX 

PAGB 

Declaration  signed  by  the  Commissioners  (January  3, 

1760) .         .         .107 

Report  by  the  Principal  Spanish  Commissioner  .     108 

Map  of  1760,  signed  April  8,  at  S.  Nicolas  de  Misiones     109 
The  Map  of  1760,  a  document  of  the  greatest  import- 
ance, because  it  already  presents  the  Pepiry  under 
the  name  of  Pepiry-Guaçú      .....     109 
The  adjectives  ^?maí  and  wzrz'w  or /;«/«/       .         .         .110 
Maps  in  which  the  Pepiry  surveyed  in   1759   appears 
under  the  name  of    Pepiry-Guaçú,    and  maps   in 
which  it  appears  under  that  of  Pequiry         .          .110 

VI. 

Examination  of  the  Argentine  allegations  against  the 

demarcation  of  I759and  1760         ....     iii 

An  error  in  the  demarcation,  but  of  no  importance      .     112 
Extent  surveyed  in  1759        •         •         •         •         •         .112 

The  survey  of  the  source  of  the  Pepiry  in  1759  was  not 
indispensable.     The  essential  thing  was  to  survey 
the  mouth  of  the  Pepiri  and  that   of   the  affluent 
of  the  Iguaçu  .  .          .          .  .  .  .113 

The  affluent   of    the    Iguaçu  was  to  be  approximately 
on  the  meridian   of  the  Pepiry.     The  S.  Antonio 
satisfies  this  condition  .          .          .          .  .115 

Another  Argentine  allegation  : — characteristic  features 

of  the  Pepiry  .         .         .         .         .         .         .118 

A  full-flowing  river  .         .         .          .         .          .  .119 

An  island  in  front  of  the  mouth  ....     120 

The  supposed  island  in  the  Map  of    1749  is  the  Great 

Falls  of  the  Uruguay     ......      121 

A  reef  within  or  without  the  mouth     ....     122 

The  only  true  information  the  Commissioners  of  1759 
had  concerning  the  Pepiry  : — the  reef  and  the  prox- 
imity of  the  Great  Falls 123 

The  Chapeco   (Pequirí-Guazú    of   the  Argentines)  is 

very  far  from  the  Great  Falls         ....      124 


CONTENTS. 

VII. 


FACE 


Examination  of  maps  anterior  to  that  of  1749      .         .124 
A  declaration  of  the  Argentine  Government         .         .      124 
First  Map  of   Paraguay  by  the    Jesuits  of  that   Prov- 
ince, drawn    between  the  years   1637  and     1641, 
and    presented    to  the   R.  F.   Vincenzo    Caraffa, 
Vllth  General  Prefect    of  the   Society  of   Jesus 

(1645- 1 649) 126 

This  Map  cannot  benefit  either  one  cause  or  the  other.     127 
Maps  of  Paraguay,  by  G.  Sanson  (1668)  and  by  G.  De 
ITsle  (1703).     They  are  not  maps   of  the  Jesuits, 
as  has  been  stated.     They  in    no  way    favor  the 
Argentine  cause      .         .         .         .         .         .         .128 

Map  of  Paraguay  by  Nicolas  de  Fer     .         .         .         -133 
Second  Map  of  Paraguay  by  the  Jesuits  of  that  Prov- 
ince, drawn   in    1722,   presented  to  R.  F.  Michel- 
angelo Tamburini,  XlVth    General  Prefect,   and 
engraved  in    1726  by   J.  Petroschi.     It  is  the  first 
map  in   which   the  positions  of  the  rivers  Pepiry 
and  Uruguay- Pita  of  the  Jesuits  can  be  examined     133 
Edition  of    Augsburg    (1730),    engraved  by  Matthew 

Seutter   .........     134 

Third  Map  of  Paraguay  by  the  Jesuits  of  that  Province, 
presented  to  R.  F.  Franciscus  Retz,  XVth  General 
Prefect,  engraved  in  1732  by  J.  l^etroschi       .          -134 
Map  of  Paraguay    by  d'Anville  (1733)  made  in  view 
of  the  maps  of  the  Jesuits,  and  appended  to  Vol. 
XXI  of  the  Let  ires  Edifiantcs         .         .          .          -135 
Map  of  South  America  by  d'Anville  (1748)  .          .  .      136 

Examination  of  the  maps  of  1722,  1732,  1733,  and  1748, 
and  refutation  of  Argentine  allegations.    All  these 
maps  are  of  Spanish  origin     .         .         .         .         .136 

In  all  the  maps  of  .Spanish  origin  anterior  to  1749,  the 
Pepiry  and  the  Uruguay-Pita  are  below  the  Great 
Falls.  The  Pepiry  of  the  Jesuits  was  a  river  in  the 
present  Argentine  territory  of  Misiones  to  the 
West  of  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry  of  the  Paulistas     .      139 


CONTENTS. 


F-  Lozano's  description  of  the  Upper  Uruguay  (1745). 
He  also  locates  the  Pepiry  and  the  Uruguay-Pita 
below  the  Great  Falls     ...... 

Examination  of  the  maps  of  1733  and  1748  by  d'An- 
ville,  and  refutation  of  Argentine  allegations 

Conclusions   ......... 

The  Brazilian  Pequiry  or  Pepiry  in  the  Map  of  1749: — 
first  river  above  the  Great  Falls     .         .         .         . 

Examination  of  the  Portuguese  Map  of  1749,  called 
*      "Map  of  the  Courts" 

Superpositions  made  under  the  direction  of  M.  Emile 
Levasseur        ........ 

How  the  Portuguese  Map  of  1749  was  composed 

Praised  by  Walckenaer ....... 

Latitude  of  the  upper  course  of  the  Uruguay 

Relative  positions  of  the  Pepiry  and  Uruguay-Pita  in 
this  map.     Explanation  .         .         .         .         . 

Transfer  of  names.  The  first  Uruguay-Pita,  named 
Paricay  in  1759,  afterwards  Piray  or  Cebollaty, 
and  lately  Turvo     ....... 

The  Uruguay-Pita  in  the  "Map  of  the  Courts"  is  the 
first  river  of  that  name — that  is  to  say,  the  Uru- 
guay-Pita of  the  Jesuits,  below  the  Great  Falls 
and  below  the  point  where  the  Uruguay,  turning 
to  the  South,  changes  its  first  direction 

The  Treaty  of  1750  and  the  Instructions  of  1751  and 
1758  do  not  mention  the  Uruguay-Pita 

The  Uruguay-Pita  was  a  river  of  unknown  course 

The  important  point  is  to  ascertain  whether  the  Pe- 
quiry or  Pepiry  of  the  Map  of  1749  was  the  Pepiry 
demarcated  in  1759,  or  whether  it  is  the  Chapecó, 
the  limit  of  the  Argentine  pretension 

Comparison  of  Latitudes 

Comparison  of  Longitudes    . 

Distance  from  the  Great  Falls 

Distance  from  the  sea-coast  . 

The  question  is  solved  as  proposed  by  the  Argentine 


140 

144 
147 

148 

148 

148 
149 
151 
151 

152 
153 


156 

157 
158 


158 
158 
160 
161 
161 


Xll 


CONTENTS. 


Memorandum  of  1883  : — the  river  of  the  boundary 
in  the  "  Map  of  the  Courts"  is  the  Pepiry-Guacu 
of  tlie  Brazilians,  and  not  the  Pequirí-Guazú  of  the 
Argentines      ........      161 

This  is  so  evident  that  even  the  author  of  the  Argen- 
tine pamphlet  Misiones  indirectly  acknowledged 
it  when  he  analyzed  the  Map  of  Paraguay  by 
Bellin.     Demonstration  .....      162 

VIII. 


Treaty  of  1761  annulling  that  of  1750.     Reason  of  the 

annulment       ........     166 

War  of  1 762-1 763,  and  Peace  of  Paris  .         .         .         .170 

Violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  by  the  Spaniards       .     171 
Renewed  hostilities  in  Brazil         .....     171 

Negotiations  for  a  Treaty  of  Limits      ....     172 

Spanish   Consulting  Junta  (1776)  and  Map  of  South 
America  by  Olmedilla  given  to  the  Junta  for  the 
examination  of  the  boundary  question  .         .         .     172 
Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  Oct.  i,  1777  .         .         .         .174 

Examination  of  Article  8  of  the  Treaty        .         .         .     175 
Treaties  of  1750  and  1777  compared     ....     178 

Differences     .         .         ,         .         .         .         .         .         .180 

Question  of  names.     Refutation  of  the  Report  of  1892 

of  the  Argentine  Foreign  Office  (180-191)     .         .     180 
Official  maps  giving  to  the  Pepiry  since  1760  the  names 

of  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Pequiry         ....      182 

Examination  of  the  Spanish  Maps  of  1768  and  1770  by 

Millau,  Cosmographer  to  the  King  of  Spain  .         .     183 
Map  of  Paraguay  by  Azara,  1787  .         .         .         .184 

The  most  important  of  the  Spanish  Maps  is  that  of 
South    America,    dated    1775,  by  Olmedilla,  Ge- 
ographer to  the   King  of    Spain,  and  afterwards 
Chief  Cosmographer  of  the  Kingdom     .         .         .     185 
This  Map  was  used  by  the  Spanish  Plenipotentiary  in 

the  negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  1777    .         .         .     185 


CONTENTS.  XI 11 


Defence    of    Olmedilla    and    reply   to    the    pamphlet 

Misiones .         .         .         .         .         .         •         •         .     1 86 

Olmedilla's  Map  and  the  Brazilian  cause       .         .         .     190 

Olmedilla   corrects    Millau's    mistake   concerning  the 

headwaters  of  the  Pepiry        .....      191 

The     demarcating    Commissioners    received    limited 

powers    .         .         .         .         .         .         •         .         .192 

Spanish  Instructions  of  1778  and  1779.         .         .         -193 

The  Spanish  Instructions  were  drawn  up  in  view  of 
Olmedilla's  Map  and  of  the  Diary  of  the  Demarca- 
tion of  1759 19S 

Comparison  of  the  Spanish  Instructions  of  1779  with 

the  Spanish  Diary  of  1759 198 

The  Uruguay-Pita  of  the  Spanish  Instructions     .         .     207 

The  Commissioners  in  1788  mistook  the  Trigoty  or 
Picada  River  (now  da  Várzea)  for  the  Uruguay- 
Pita  of  1759 208 

This  error  produced  another  on  the  occasion  of  the 
first  journey  on  the  Uruguay  in  search  of  the 
Pepiry-Guaçú  (May,  1788) 208 

The  error  was  promptly  corrected'        ....     208 

Second  journey  on  the  Uruguay  (July,  August,  1788). 
Demarcation  of  the  mouth  of  the  true  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  of  the  Treaty,  and  discovery  by  the  Span- 
iards of  the  River  Caudaloso,  farther  to  the  East 
(now  the  Chapecó) 209 

Inscriptions  set  up  by  the  Portuguese  and  Spaniards 

at  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú         .         .         .210 

The  First  Spanish  Commissioner  alleges  since  1789 
that  the  River  Caudaloso  (Chapecó)  was  the 
Pepiry  or  Pequiry  of  the  Treaty  of  1750,  and  that 
in  the  demarcation  of  1759  there  was  an  error,  be- 
cause the  Pepiry  should  be  above  the  Uruguay- 
Pita         210 

Surveys  made  jointly,  and  the  reason  why  the  Portu- 
guese allowed  the  survey  of  the  River  Caudaloso 
to  be  made.  Oyárvide  discovers  the  sources  of  a 
river  which  he  names  S.  Antonio  Guazú         .         .     211 


CONTENTS. 


I'AGE 


The  Spanisli  Instructions  disregarded  ....     213 
The  Spanish  Government  never  took  into  consideration 
the  change  of  the  boundary  line  proposed  by  its 
Commissioners        .         .         .         .         .         .         .214 


IX. 

The  contested  territory  was  never  a  part  of  Misiones  .  215 
Missions  of  the  Spanish  Jesuits  in  the  XVIIth  cen- 
tury. Province  of  Guayra  .  .  .  .  .215 
Conquest  of  Guayra  by  the  Paulistas  (1630-1633)  .  217 
Missions  of  the  Spanish   Jesuits  to  the   East   of  the 

Uruguay,  in  Rio  Grande  do  Sul     .         .  .          .219 

Conquest  of  Rio  Grande  do  Sul  by  the  Paulistas  (1636- 

1638) 219 

The  Paulistas  in  the  territory  now  contested  .  .  220 
Seven  new  missions  established  by  the  Jesuits  to  the 

East  of  the  Uruguay  (1687-1706)  .  .  .  .  225 
Limits  of  the  Spanish  occupation  on  the  Uruguay  and 

Paraná    .         .         ...          .         .          .          .         .     225 

The  Spaniards   and    their   Jesuit    Missionaries   never 

occupied  the  territory  now  contested  .  .  .  229 
Cabeza  de  Vaca  was  not  the  discoverer  of  the  territory 

now  contested,  and  never  saw  it  .  .  .  .  230 
The   territory  now  contested   was  discovered   by  the 

Brazilians        ........     234 

X. 

First  negotiation  for  a  Treaty  of  Limits,  on  the  initia- 
tive of  the  Brazilian  Government  ....  234 
Treaty  of  December  14,  1857  .....  235 
Approved  by  the  Argentine  Congress  ....  236 
Why  the  ratifications  were  not  exchanged  .  .  .  238 
Importance  of  the  Treaty  of  1857,  although  it  did  not 

become  effective     .......  240 


251 
2U 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE 

Examination  of  the  law  of  the  Argentine  Congress 

approving  the  Treaty  of  1857  ....     241 

Alliance  between  Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Republic 
against  the  Dictator  of  Paraguay.  The  Para- 
guayan War  ended   1870         .....     245 

Evacuation  of  the  territory  of  Misiones  by  the  Para- 
guayans .          .          .  ■ 245 

Treaty  of  Limits  between  the  Argentine  Republic  and 
Paraguay  (1876).  The  territory  of  Misiones  be- 
tween the  Uruguay  and  Paraná  definitively  belong- 
ing to  the  Argentine  Republic        ....     246 

To  this  Brazil  contributed     ......     246 

Second   negotiation   for  a  Treaty  of  Limits  with  the 

Argentine  Republic,  initiated  by  Brazil         .  .     247 

Without  result       ........ 

The  Argentine  pretension  to  the  Brazilian  territory  of 
Palmas  manifested  for  the  first  time  in  1881 

The  occupation  of  the  territory  of  Palmas  by  the  Bra- 
zilians since  1836  and  1838.  The  Argentine  Gov- 
vernment  could  not  be  ignorant  of  it  since  1841, 
and  for  forty  years  it  did  not  protest  against  it     .     253 

Seventy  years  without  a  protest  against  the  Brazilian 

maps 259 

The   Argentine    official    maps    admitted    the    Pepiry- 

Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio  as  boundaries  of  Brazil     .     260 

Creation  of  the  Argentine  Gobernacion  of  Misiones, 

1882 265 

Third  negotiation  initiated  by  Brazil  in  1882         .         .     266 

Treaty  of  September  28,  1885,  for  the  survey  of  the 
rivers  Pepiry-Guacu  and  S.  Antonio,  the  boundary 
defended  by  Brazil,  and  the  Chapecó  (Pequirí- 
Guazú)  and  Chopim,  the  boundary  of  the  Argen- 
tine claim  since  1881        ......     271 

The  Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission  ascertain 
that  the  Jangada,  and  not  the  Chopim,  is  the  S. 
Antonio  Guazú  of  Oyárvide  .          .          .         .         .271 

This  increased  the  extent  of  the  contested  territory     .     271 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

Argentine  proposal  for  the  division  of  the  contested 

territory  (1889).     Rejected  by  Brazil     .         .         .     274 
Treaty  of  Arbitration  of  Sept.  7,  1889  .         .         .         .275 

Brazilian  Revolution 275 

The  Provisional  Government  of  Brazil  agrees  to  the 
Argentine  proposal  for  the  division  of  the  territory 
of  Palmas.     Treaty  of  January  25,  1890         .         .     275 
Rejected  by  the  Brazilian  Congress  (August  10,  1891)     276 
Recourse  to  Arbitration,  in  accordance  with  the  Treaty 

of  1889 276 


APPENDIX. 

List  of  Documents  in  Vols.  III.  and  IV.       .         .        .     279 
List  of  Maps  in  Vols.  I.,  V.,  and  VI 282 


PAGK. 


ERRATA. 


LINE.  ERROR.  CORRECTION. 


6 1 26 contubare conturbare 

131 6 Francesco Franciscus 

133 3  of  the  note. par by 

134 6  of  the  note.i726./Joannes 1722. /Joannes 

137 7 Great  Falls  of  Uru-.  Great    Falls    of   the 

guay  Uruguay 

" " the  affluents  of  the .  the  affluents 

146 7 Gaucú Guaçú 

"    14 of  d'Anville by  d'Anville 

163 4  of  the  note. 1 892 1893 

186 ......  1 2  of  the  note .  Dictionario Dicionário 

194 3 navigation, navigation,   such  as 

are 
211 28 to  explore  and to  survey  and  draw- 
survey  up  the  Plan  of 

"    29 Pepiry-Guaçú Pepirí-Guazú 

242 15 that  Treaty the  Treaty 

246 23 definitely definitively 

. .  26 Report Memoir 

. .  18 geometical geometrical 


273- 
274 


Vol.  I. 


ADDITIONAL    ERRATA. 


Vol.   I.  : 


PAGE.  LINE.  ERROR.  CORRECTION. 

20 2  1 Rio  Real  to  the ....  Rio  Real  to 

125 16 of  the  XVIth from  the  XVIth 

"    17 and  XVIIth  cen- 
turies  to  the  XVlIIth  cen- 
tury 

148 21 conditions additions 

154 2nd  note Piray  ou .  .  .  : Piray  or 

161 12 1 1 

168 4 right  bank left  bank 

185 ist  marginal 

note  ...1777 1775 

"    2nd  marginal 

note..  .  1775 1777 

186 21 BOUGER BOUGUER 

208 I  of  the  note. witness witness    (in    Calvo, 

X,  92) 
225 14 South South    of    the    Uru- 
guay 

229 30  and  31 moraenarily momentarily 

244 I An  examination  ,  .  .  .The  examination 

250 24 in  a  letter in  the  letter 

251 31 2052 2502 

259 5 the  first  of  the  notice .  the  first  notice  of  the 

265    ....27 five four 

275 10 1881  and  1889 1889 

"   II The  project  of  1881.. The  first   project  of 

1889 
"   13 that  of  1889 the  second  project 


Vol.  Ill  : 
69 19 month mouth 


Vol.  V  : 

Map  N?  s VV.  from  Ferro  1.  .E.  from  Ferro  I. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION   BETWEEN  BRAZIL 
AND  THE   ARGENTINE  REPUBLIC. 

STATE3IENT    OF   THE   RIGHTS    OF    BRAZU.. 
I. 

THE  controversy  submitted  by  the  United  States 
of  Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Republic  to  the 
arbitration  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America  has  reference  to  the  controversy^ 
dominion  over  a  territory,  now  in  posses- 
sion of  Brazil,  between  the  rivers  Iguaçu  and  Uru- 
guay.^ 

The  present  divisional  line  between  the  two  coun- 
tries begins,  in  the  North,  at  the  river  Paraná,  opposite 

'  The  present  boundaries  of  Brazil  and  the  location  of  the  territory  claimed 
by  the  Argentine  Republic  can  be  studied  on  three  Maps  drawn  up  by  the 
Brazilian  Special  Mission  at  Washington,  and  appended  to  this  Statement. 

The  title  of  the  first  is  :  '"Brazil,  its  contested  territory,  and  the  bordering 
countries." 

The  second  :   "  Map  of  Southern  Brazil." 

The  third  :  "  Map  of  the  Judicial  Division  {Comarca)  of  Palmas  in  the 
Brazilian  State  of  Parana  ;  of  the  Argentine  Government  {Gobernacion)  of 
Misiones  ;  and  of  a  part  of  the  Brazilian  State  of  Rio  Grande  do  Sul."  This 
Map  is  N?  2gA,  in  Vol.  VI.  In  it  are  given  the  present  and  the  former 
names  of  the  rivers  of  that  region. 

Two  other  Maps,  drawn  on  a  larger  scale,  show  only  the  contested  territory. 
One,  N?  25A,  is  a  reduced  fac-simile  of  the  Map  constructed  by  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission,  which,  under  the  Treaty  of  28th  September,  1885, 
surveyed  this  territory.  The  other,  N?  26A,  is  a  fac-simile  of  the  authenticated 
copy  of  the  same  Map,  drawn  by  the  Argentine  Commission. 

I 


2  BRAZILlAN-ARGENTIiYE 

the  confluence  of  the  Iguaçu ;  it  follows  the  course  of 
the  latter  tVoiu  its  mouth  in  the  Paraná  to  the  point 
where  it  is  joined  by  the  Santo  Antonio  ;  it  then  tuins 
to  the  South,  going  up-stream  by  the  S.  Antonio  to  ita 
principal  headwater ;  thence  it  passes  from  the  basin 
of  the  Iguaçu  to  that  of  the  Uruguay,  continuing 
along  the  highest  ground  to  the  principal  source  of  the 
Pepiry-Guaçú  ;  it  then  follows  in  a  Southerly  dii-ection 
the  course  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  to  its  confluence  with 
the  Uruguay,  and  afterwards  proceeds  down  this  river 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Quarahim. 

This  boundary  line  is  thus  composed  of  three  dis- 
tinct sections :  the  Iguaçu,  the  Uruguay,  and  the  line 
which  connects  these  two  rivers,  forming  the  boundary 
of  the  intermediate  territory. 

The  Brazilian  and  Argentine  Governments  agree  as 
to  the  two  boundary  lines  of  the  Iguaçíi  and  the 
Uruguay,  but  they  disagree  touching  the  definition  of 
the  two  rivers,  which,  flowing  into  them  in  opposite 
directions,  must  definitively  constitute'the^  international 
boundary  of  the  intermediate  territory. 

Brazil  maintains  that  this  boundary  must  be  formed 
by  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  the  S.  Antonio. 

The  Argentine  Republic  has  claimed,  since  1881, 
two  rivers  more  to  the  East.  Until  1888,  the/ were 
the  Chapecó  and  the  Chopim.  In  1888  it  transferred 
its  claim  from  the  Chopim  to  the  Jangada. 

The  contested  territory  thus  came  to  have  the  fol- 
lowing boundaries :  to  the  North,  the  Iguaçu ;  to  the 
South,  the  Uruguay  ;    to  the  West,  the  S. 
Boundaries  of  Antonio  and  the  Pepiry-Guaçú ;  and  to  the 
territory.  East,  the  Jangada  and  the  Chapecó. 

The  Argentine  Government  L^ives  to  the 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  3 

Chapecó  the  name  of  Pequirí-Guazú,  and  to  the  Jan- 
gada that  of  San  Antonio-Guazú.' 

This  territory  forms  the  greater  part  of  the  Comarca 
(Judicial  Division)  of  Palmas,  in  the  State  of  Paraná, 
one  of  the  United  States  of  Brazil,  and  is  bounded  on 
the  West  by  the  Argentine  territory  of  Misiones,  and 
on  the  South  by  the  Brazilian  State  of  Rio  Grande 
do  Sul. 

The  disputed  area  is  more  than  30,621  square  kilo- 
metres, or    11,828    English    square    miles, 
or   1,313,6  English  square  leagues,  which 
equal   nearly    1,000    geographical    square  leagues,  or 
exactly,  991.3. 

On  December  31,  1890,  the  date  of  the  last  census 
taken  in  Brazil,  the  population  of  the  Co- 
marca of  Palmas  was  9,601  inhabitants,  of 
whom  9,470  were  Brazilians  and  131  aliens. 

The  contested  part  of  the  Comarca  then  had  5,798 
inhabitants,  5,763  being  Brazilians,  and  30  aliens. 
Among  the  latter  there  was  not  a  single  Argentine 
citizen. 

The  number  of  urban  and  rural  houses  was  1,004.^ 

It  was  by  the  Treaty  of  September  7,  1889,  that 

'  The  names  Pepiry  and  Pequiry  are  written  indifferently  with  the  termina- 
tion y  OF  /. 

Guaçú,  in  the  language  of  the  Guarany  or  Tupy  Indians,  means  great,  and 
mirim,  or  mirin,  small.  The  Portuguese  wrote  guaçií,  or  giiassil.  The  Bra- 
zilians also  spell  it  either  way.  The  Spaniards  and  their  Argentine  descendants 
víxxVt.  guazi't .  The  adjective  mirim,  or  mirin.  so  written  by  the  Portuguese  and 
Spaniards  from  the  early  times  of  the  conquest  until  the  XVIIIth  century,  was 
at  last  transformed  by  the  Spaniards,  Argentines,  and  Paraguayans  into  minin 
and  mini. 

Santo  Atitonio  in  Portuguese,  and  San  Antonio  in  Spanish,  are  one  and  the 
same  name. 

-  Statistical  tables  containing  other  information  are  given  at  the  end  of  the 
two  volumes  of  documents  (English  translation,  Vol.  III.,  Portuguese  text, 
Vol.  IV.). 


4  BRA  Zn.IA  X-A  RGKiV  TINE 

Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Rejmblic  agreed 
Treaty  of         to    siiljniit    their    controversies    regarding 
boundaries  to  the  Arbitration  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  of  America. 
Article  V.  of  the  Treaty  is  as  follows  : 
"  The   frontier  shall   be   constituted    by   the    rivers 
which   Bi-azil  or  the  Argentine  Re[)ublic  have  desig- 
nated, and  the  iVrbitrator  shall  be  invited 

No  division  of  •  (•  /•  i  i 

the  contested      to  prououuce  lu  lavor  ot  one  or  the  other 
territory.  ^^^  ^|^^  Parties  as  he  may  consider  just  after 

due  investigation  of  the  reasons  and   documents  pro- 
duced." 

Thus,  in  accoi'dance  with  this  provision,  Brazil  and 
the  Ai-gentine  Republic  have  invited  the  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America  as  Arbitrator  to  o^ive  his 
award  for  one  of  these  two  boundary  lines  : 

1)  That  of  the  livers  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio, 
the  present  boundary  of  Brazil ;  or 

2)  That  of  the  rivei's  Jangada  (S.  Antonio  Guazii) 
and  Chapecó  (Pequirí-Guazú),  the  boundary  claimed 
by  the  Argentine  Republic. 


II. 

The  Pepiry-Guaçú  was  known  under  the  naAes  of 
Pepiiy  or  Pequiry  when  Portugal  and  Spain,  by  the 
^  ,  Treaty  of  Madrid,  of  the  13th  of  January, 

Treaty  of  1750.  "^  .  .      .  v 

1750,    detei'mined     the     limits    of    their 

possessions  in    South  America,      The   affluent  of  the 

Iguaçii  ^^•hicll   was   to  complete  the  divi- 

Pepiry  or  Pequiry.       .,,.,,.  .  ,  . 

sional  line  111  this  region,  was  at  that  time 
unnamed. 

The  Portuguese  and  Spanish  Commissioners  charged 


1st  demarcation. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  5 

with  the  demarcation,  fulfilling  exactly  the  instructions 
they  had  received,  surveyed  (1759)  the 
greater  part  of  the  course  of  the  Pepiry  or 
Pequiry,  and  discovered  and  surveyed  the  affluent  of 
the  Iguaçu  which  completed  the  line  of  demarcation, 
necessarily  a  meridian  line  in  this  place,  since  its  object 
was  to  connect  two  initial  points  situated,  the  one  to 
the  South,  on  the  Uruguay,  and  the  other  to  the 
North,  on  the  Iguaçii. 

The  river  by  means  of  which  the  boundary  was  thus 
completed    they    called  the  S.  Antonio,  and  they  de- 
clared that  they  preserved  for  the  Pepiry  or 
Pequiiy    the   first    of   its    former    names. 
But  from    1760    the    Pepiry  began  to  appear  in  the 
Portuguese    maps    under  that   of   Pepiry-  Pepiry-Guaça  or 
Guaçú,   and   in   the   official   Spanish  maps        Pequ.ry. 
now  under  this  name  and  now  under  the  old  name  of 
Pequiry. 

By  the  Treaty  of  El  Pardo  of  the  12th  of  February, 
1761,  Portugal  and  Spain  annulled  that  of  1750,  not 
because  they  disagreed  as  to  this  part  of  the 
boundary,  but  for  reasons   that   will    be '^'■^**^°^'^^'• 
stated  in  the  proper  place. 

Th^n  came  the  Preliminary  Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso, 
of  the   1st   of  October,   1777,  the  last  agreement  con- 
cluded between   the  Crowns  of  Portugal 
and  Spain  as  to  the  limits  of  their  posses- 
sions in  South  America, 

In  this  Treaty,  the  two  affluents  of  the  Uruguay  and 
of  the  Ignaçii  were  designated  and  determined,  one  by 
the  name  of  Pepiry-Guaçú  or  Pequiry,  the  other  by 
that  of  S.  Antonio  under  which  they  appeared  in  the 
printed  and  manuscript   maps   used    in    defining   the 


3d  demarcation. 


6  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

divisional  line.  The  instructions  given  l)y  the  Spanish 
Government  to  its  Commissioners  stated 
most  minutely  and  clearly  that  the  boun- 
dary line  Avas  to  be  traced  along  the  same  rivers 
Pepiry-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio,  as  defined  by  eoninioii 
accord  in  1759  and  1760. 

But  in  1 788, — eleven  years  after  the  Treaty  of  San 
Ildefonso, — tlie  Si)anish  Commissionei's  discovei-ed  on 
River  discovered  ^^*^  right  bauk  of  the  Uruguay,  above  the 
in  1788.  confluence  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú,  and,  tliere- 

fore,  more  to  the  East  and  within  the  Portuguese  ter- 
ritory, the  mouth   of  another  river,  Avhieh  had  ali'eady 
appeared,  although  without  a   name,  on   tlie  maps  of 
the  beo-innins:  of  that  century.     Tlien,  on 

Pretension  of  O  o  J  ' 

Spanish  commis-  the  basis  of  alleged   errors   of   the    Com- 

sioners.  .       .  pi""  •  t 

missioners  01  the  previous  demarcation, 
they  attempte<l  to  carry  the  boundary,  not  along  the 
Pepiry-Guaçú  and  tlie  S.  Antonio,  as  defined  in  the 
Treaty  of  1777  and  in  the  Instructions  of  the  two 
Governments,  \n\t  by  the  river  which  they  discovered 
in  1788,  and  along  that  which,  rising  on  the  o[)[)Osite 
slope  of  the  watershed  line  between  the  basins  of  the 
Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu,  should  empty  itself  into  the 
last  named.  The  sources  of  the  tributary  of  the 
River  discovered  Ig^^çú,  proposed  by  the  Spanish  Commis- 
'"'^^'-  sioners  as  a  substitute  for  the  S.  Antonio, 

were  not   found    till    171*1, — fourteen  years  aftei'  the 
conclusion  of  the  Treaty. 

The    Spanish     Commissioners    gave     the     name    v)f 

pequiry-Guazu    Pcquiiy-Guazu  to   thc  river  discovered  in 

orchapecó.        \^^^^   aiid    the    other,   whose  head-waters 

were  found    in    1791,   they   called    the    San    Antonio 

Guazú,        The   former    appeared    in    the 

S.  Antonio  Guazú.  i     x-»  •  i  • 

Portuguese  and  Brazilian  maps  of  the  end 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  7 

of  last  century  and  of  the  ])egiuinng  of  this  under  the 
name  of  Kio  Caudaloso,  but  that  of  Chapecó,  which 
the  Indian  natives  of  that  country  had  given  it,  pre- 
vailed. The  course  of  the  second  river,  which  tlie 
Spaniards  had  been  unable  to  survey,  was  arbitrarily 
represented  by  them  as  following  now  a  northerly, 
and  now  a  northwesterly  direction.  Until  1888  the 
Brazilian  and  Argentine  Governments  supposed  that 
this  river  was  the  one  which  is  locally  supposed  to  be 
known  as  the  Chopira,  and  flows  in  the  di-  thechopim. 
rectiou  of  the  Northwest,  emptying  itself  into  the 
Iguaçii  above  the  mouth  of  the  Santo  Antonio.  The 
survey    made    in    1888    i^roved   that    the    ^^   , 

<J  -L  The  Jangada  is 

head- waters  of  the  S.  Antonio    Guazii  of    ^^^  s.  Antonio- 

c  1  •  T  1  I'll'  Guazu. 

1791  form  the  river   Jans-ada  which   dis- 

charges  itself  into  the  Iguaçu  much  more  to  the  East. 

The  demarcation   of   the   extensive    boundary   line 
between  Brazil  and  the  Spanish  possessions  was  not 
completed,  nor  had  the  two  interested  Gov- 
ernments solved  the  doubts  raised  by  their  ^g^^ 
Demarcating  Commissioners,  when,  in  1801, 
the   King    of     Spain,    by   the     Manifesto     dated     at 
Aranjuez,  on  the  28th  February  of  that  yeai",  declared 
war  against  the  Queen  of  Portugal,  Her  Kingdoms  and 
dominions,  and  immediately  aftei'wards  issued  instruc- 
tions to  the  Spanish  Viceroys  and  Governors  in  South 
America  to  begin  hostilities  against  Brazil. 

Thus  was  violated  and  bi-oken  the  Treaty  of  Amity 
and  Guarantee  between  the  two  Crowns  of  Portuiial 
and  Spain,  signed  at  El  Paido  on  the  11th  The  Treaty 
of  March,  1778,  and  the  Preliminary  Treaty  «^  ^777  void, 
of  Limits  of  1777  was  broken  and  annulled,  because 
there  was  a  conquest  of  territories  in  America,  and  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  concluded  at  Badajoz  on  the  6th  of 


8  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

June,  1801,  did  not  provide  for  the  status  quo  ante 
helhini  nor  restore  the  Treaty  of   Limits  of  1777. 

Portugal  retained  the  territories  it  had  conquered  in 
Rio  Grande  do  Sul,  and  they  were  thus  definitively 
incorpoi-ated  into  Brazil. 

The  nullity  or  validity  of  the  Treaty  of  1777,  and 
tlie  definition  of  the  boundary  between  the  rivers 
Another  point  Ui'^guay  and  Iguaçu  are  the  two  principal 
of  disagree-  questious  upou  which  Brazil  and  the 
ment.  Argentine  Republic  disagree  in  the  discus- 

sion of  their  boundaries. 

The  Brazilian  Government  has  always  maintained 
thaiihe  lit  1 2)ossi (let  is  oi  the  period  of  the  independence 
Rules  adopted  ^^^  *^^  Soutli  American  nations,  and  such 
by  the  Brazilian  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  1777  as  do  not 
Government,  conflict  with  that  uti  possidetis,  are  the  only 
bases  upon  which  agreements  as  to  limits  between 
Brazil  and  the  adjoining  States  of  Spanish  origin  are 
to  be  founded. 

At  the  conference  of  the  12th  of  March,  1856,  the 
Declarations  in  Braziliau  Miulster  for  Foreign  Affairs,^  in 
^^^-  a  discussion   with   the   Plenipotentiary  of 

Paraguay,  expressed  himself  as  follows : 

"  The  Imperial  Government  recognizes,  as  does  that 
of  the  Republic  (of  Paraguay),  that  the  Treaties  of 
Limits  concluded  between  the  two  mother-countries, 
Portugal  and  Spain,  are  to  be  considered  as  broken 
and  of  no  value,  because  they  were  never  carried  into 
effect  on  account  of  the  doubts  and  embarrassments 
which  arose  on  both  sides  pending  the  demarcation, 
and  in  consequence  of  the  wars  which  broke  out  be- 
tween the  said  mother-countries. 

"So  that  the  Treaty  of  1750  was  revoked  by  that  of 

'  Councillor  Paranhos,  afterwards  Viscount  de  Rio-Branco. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  9 

the  12th  February,  1761,  aud  after  these  conventions 
came  the  war  of  1762  ended  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of 
1763,  things  remaining  in  the  state  in  which  they  were 
before. 

"  Then  followed  the  Preliminary  Treaty  of  the  1st 
Octobei',  1777,  which  had  the  same  fate  as  that  of 
1750,  which  it  had  in  great  part  ratified.  The  doubts 
raised  in  the  demarcation  prevented  the  full  effect  of 
this  last  survey  of  the  frontiers  of  the  two  countries ; 
and,  finally,  the  war  of  1801  annulled  it  forever,  seeing 
that  the  Treaty  of  Peace  signed  at  Badajoz  on  the  6th 
of  June  of  the  same  year  did  not  restore,  it,  or  provide 
that  thinirs  should  return  to  the  state  ante  helium. 

'•  But  if  the  Imi)erial  Government  concurs  upon  this 
point  with  that  of  the  Republic,  it  understands  also  that 
it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  provisions  of  those  Treaties, 
as  an  auxiliary  basis  in  order  to  ascertain  Avhat  consti- 
tuted Portuguese  territory  and  what  Spanish  territory, 
as  well  as  the  modifications  undergone  by  the  domain 
of  either  nation  in  the  course  of  years  and  events.  In 
places  where  one  of  the  two  States  contests  the  domain 
of  the  other,  and  the  latter  is  not  established  by  effec- 
tive occupation,  or  by  material  monuments  of  posses- 
sion, that  auxiliary  basis  throws  light  upon  the  doubt, 
and  may  peremptorily  remove  it. 

"  To  Brazil  indisputably  belongs  the  territory  which 
in  South  America  formerly  belonged  to  Portugal,  with 
the  losses  and  acquisitions  which  occurred  after  the 
Treaties  of  1750  and  1777;  and,  reciprocally,  to  the 
adjoining  States  which  were  colonies  of  Spain  belongs 
that  which  formed  part  of  the  dominion  of  this  nation, 
saving  the  changes  indicated  by  its  nfi  pos.^tidetis.''^^ 

'  Protocols  of  the  Conferences  held  in  the  City  of  Rio  de  Janeiro  bettueen  the 
Plenipotentiaries  of  Brazil  and  the  Republic  of  Paraguay,  pp.  22.  (Appended 
to  tlie  Report  of  the  Department  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Brazil,  1S57.) 


IO  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

The  Memorandiini  delivered  by  the  Brazilian  Pleni- 
Dcciarations  poteiitiary  Oil  the  i^Oth  of  November,  1857, 
'"'^57.  tQ  the  Argentine  Government,  began    by 

artirminoj  these  very  principles: 

"The  boundaries  between  the  Empire  of  Brazil  and 
the  adjacent  Republics,"  this  document  says,  "  cannot 
be  determined  by  the  Treaties  concluded  between 
Portugal  and  Spain,  their  ancient  mother-countries, 
unless  both  the  contracting  parties  are  willing  to  adopt 
them  as  a  basis  foi'  tlie  demarcation  of  their  respective 
frontiers. 

"The  conventions  by  whicli  the  two  Crowns  of  Por- 
tugal and  Spain  sought  to  divide  among  themselves 
lands  not  yet  discovered  or  con([uered  in  America  and 
to  define  their  possessions  already  established  on  that 
continent,  nev^er  produced  the  desired  effect. 

"  The  doubts  and  uncertainties  of  such  stipulations, 
the  difficulties  arising  from  one  side  or  the  other, 
and,  finally,  war,  successively  nullified  all  agreements, 
and  established  the  right  of  uti  'pomldetU  as  the 
only  title  and  the  only  barrier  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  either  nation  and  of  their  colonies  in  South 
America. 

"  The  last  stipulations  made  and  concluded  between 
the  two  Crowns  for  the  demarcation  of  their  dominions 
in  the  New  World  are  those  of  the  Preliminary  Treaty 
of  the  1st  October,  1777,  whose  provisions  were  in 
great  [)art  copied  from  the  Treaty  of  the  13th  January, 
1750,  which  the  foi-mer  was  intended  to  modify  and 
explain. 

"The  Treaty  of  1777  was  broken  and  annulled  by 
the  war  which  su})ervened  in  1801,  between  Portugal 
and  Spain,  and  I'emained  so  for  ever,  not  having  been 
restoi-ed  by   the  Treaty  of  Peace  signed  at  Badajoz  ou 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  II 

the  16tli  June  of  the  same  year.  Si)ain  kept  the  for- 
tified town  of  Olivença,  which  it  had  conquered  by 
right  of  war,  and  Portugal  all  the  territory  belonging 
to  Spain,  which,  by  virtue  of  the  same  right,  it  Ijad 
occupied^in  Ameiica. 

"  It  is,  therefore,  incontestable  that  neither  even  Spain 
or  Portugal  could  to-day  appeal  to  the  Treaty  of  1777, 
because  the  principles  of  International  Law  would  be 
opposed  to  any  such  pretension. 

"The  Government  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
Brazil,  recognizing  the  absence  of  any  written  defini- 
tion of  its  borders  with  the  neighboring  States,  has 
adoj)ted  and  proposed  as  the  only  reasonable  and 
equitable  basis  that  can  be  appealed  to:  the  uti i^ossi- 
detis,  where  this  exists,  and  the  sti[)ulations  of  the 
Treaty  of  1777,  where  they  are  in  conformity  with,  or 
do  not  oppose,  the  actual  possessions  of  either  of  the 
contracting  parties. 

"  These  principles  are  supported  by  reason  and  jus- 
tice and  are  sanctioned  by  Universal  Pul)lic  Law.  If 
they  l)e  rejected,  the  only  regulating  priuci[)le  would 
be  the  convenience  and  strength  of  each  nation." 

The  Argentine  Government  holds  that  the  principle 
of  the  colonial  utl  'poiisidetis  can  only  be  invoked  in  the 
transactions  concerning  boundaries  between  Argentine 
the  Spanish-American  Rei)ublics,  consider-     Government 

•     '      1       rrv        .         Í  -1^-^-   -       1       •      J?    11       •  considers 

ing  the  Treaty  of  1  v  í  ^  to  be  m  lull  vigor.  Treaty  of  1777 
and  bindinsr  on  Brazil  and  the  Arcj-entine  in  full  force. 
Republic. 

This  question  of  1801  can  be  decided  only  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  principles  prevailing  at  Treaties  of 
that   time,  and    with    the  rule    uniformly         p^^*^^  ^^" 

.  .      .  ,  '     tween    Portu- 

observed  in  peace  negotiations  between  g^i  and  Spain 
Portugal  and  Spain.  prior  to  1810. 


12  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

An  examinatiou  of  the  Treaties  of  Peace  between 
these  two  Crowns  since  the  indej)endeuce  of  Portugal 
Avill  show  that  the  expi'ess  restoration  of  all  con- 
ventions ante  helium,  and  most  particularly  of  those 
I'elating  to  limits,  was  an  indispensable  condition  to 
their  I'e-acquiring  the  force  they  })revnously  possessed. 
It  was  for  this  reason  that  Article  13  of  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht,  of  February  6,  1715,  restored  the  Treaties  of 
l.'Uli  February,  1668,  and  18th  June,  1701  ;  that 
Article  2  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  of  10th  Februaiy, 
1768,  restored  the  Treaties  of  1668  and  1715,  and  tliat 
of  12th  February,  1761  ;  and  that  Article  1  of  the 
Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  in  1777,  levived  the  Treaties 
of  13th  February,  1668,  6th  February,  1715,  and  10th 
February,  1763,  in  all  that  was  not  incompatible  with 
the  provisions  of  the  new  Treaty. 

In  the  Treaty  of  Peace  of  Badajoz  that  customary 
Peace  of  Bad-  clause  was  Omitted,  because  both  Govern- 
ajoz,  i8oi.  inents  hoped  to  secure  great  territorial 
con(|uests  in  South  America.^ 

If,  in  1801,  the  Ti-eaty  of  San  Ildefonso  ceased  to 
be  binding  on  Portugal  and  Spain,  it  could  not  be 
binding  on  Bi-azil  or  the  Spanish  Colonies,  which  pro- 
claimed themselves  independent. 

In  1810  the  provinces  of  the  Viceroyalty  of  Rio  de 
la   Plata,  seceding  from  the  mother-country,  dismejn- 

*  The  following  passage  of  a  letter  written  from  Buenos-Aires  on  the  ist  of 
March,  1802,  by  D.  Felix  ije  Azara,  Spanish  Commissioner  for  the  demarcation 
of  limits,  shows  the  current  opinion  in  Spain  and  in  its  possessions  at  that  time  : 

"On  the  other  hand  I  doubt  whether  the  Treaty  of  limits  should  be  the 
basis  of  my  remarks,  because  it  appears  to  me  that  that  of  1777,  according  to 
which  I  was  charged  to  make  the  demarcation,  should  be  held  to  have  been 
annulled  and  Vjroken  at  the  time  of  the  declaration  of  the  last  war,  and  I  do 
not  know  whether,  on  the  conclusion  of  the  present  peace,  this  has  been  agreed 
upon  in  other  terms,  because  I  have  not  seen  that  Treaty  of  Peace." 

This  document  is  in  the  Archives  of  Alcala  de  Henares,  in  Spain. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  13 

bered    themselves.      The    (greater  number  .        ^.     , 

o  Argentine  In- 

of  them  formed  as  early  as  1816  the  Re-     dependence, 
public  of   the    United   Provinces    of   Rio  ^^^°- 

de  la  Plata,  later  the  Argentine   Confederation,   and, 
lastly,  the  Argentine  Republic. 

In  1821  the  Uin'ted  Kingdom  of  Portugal,  Brazil, 
and  the  Algarves  recognized  the  indejDendence  of  the 
new  Republic. 

In  1822  the  Kingdom  of  Brazil  pi-oclaimed  its  inde- 
pendence and  continued  to  be,  until  1889,  the  Constitu- 
tional Empire  of  Brazil.  The  two  new 
nations  certainly  inherited,  as  to  territorial  gndence  1822' 
limits,  the  rights  and  obligations  of  their 
respective  mother-countries,  but  the  only  principle  in 
force  at  the  time  of  the  proclamation  of  independence, 
inasmucli  as  there  was  then  no  Treaty  of  Limits,  was 
that  of  uti  possidetis,  already  recognized  by  Portugal 
and  Spain  since  1 750  as  the  only  i-easonable  and  safe 
rule  by  which  their  boundaries  in  South  America  were 
to  be  determined. 

But  the  Brazilian  and  Ars^entine  Governments 
having  agreed,  as  has  been  said  already,  that  the  prin- 
cipal boundaries  of  the  two  countries  are  to  continue 
to  be  formed  by  the  two  fluvial  lines  of  the  Uruguay 
and  the  Iguaçu,  the  question  of  the  nullity  or  validity 
of  the  Treaty  of  1777  is  of  no  practical  importance  in 
the  present  controversy,  inasmuch  as  the  war  of  1801  in 
no  way  modified  the  extent  of  the  domain  of  Portugal 
or  Spain  in  the  zone  comprised  between  those  two 
riv^ers. 

Brazil  bases  its  rights  upon  the  fact  that,  as 
The  right  of  ^^'^'h'  ^^  ^^^^  XVIIth  ceutury,  the  terri- 
Brazii.  ti^ry  to  the  East  of  the  river  Pequiry  or 


14  BRA/JUAN- ARGENTINE 

Pepiiy,  afterwards  Pepiry-Gna(;ú — discovered  by  the 
Brazilians  of  IS.  Paulo,  called  I*aulistas,  and  not  by 
Cabeza  de  Vaoa,  as  has  been  recently  alleged,  by 
modifying  the  known  itinerary  of  that  Spanish  Gov- 
ernor,— was  under  the  sway  of  the  Paulistas  and 
formed  an  integral  part  of  Brazil.  It  bases  its  right 
upon  the  ut'i  poxskletis  of  the  period  of  the  Indepen- 
dence, which  was  the  same  as  ^vas  recognized  by  the 
Spanish  Missionaries  when,  from  the  XVIIth  until  the 
middle  of  the  XVIIIth  century,  they  maintained  to 
the  West  of  the  Brazilian  Pequiry  a  post  of 
observation  to  give  warning  of  the  movements  of 
the  Paulistas ;  a  possession  equally  recognized  by 
Spain  in  the  Treaty  of  1750,  and  admitted  by  the 
Arííentine  Govei'ument  itself,  since  duriui;  the  Ions' 
period  of  seventy  years  which  elapsed  between  1810 
and  1881,  it  never  set  up  any  pretension  whatever  to  a 
more  Easterly  boundary  than  this,  and  in  the  period  of 
forty  years  which  elapsed  from  the  effective  and 
permanent  occupation  of  that  territory  by  Brazilian 
citizens  and  authorities  in  1888  and  1840,  to  1881, 
it  made  neither  claim  nor  protest  against  the  Bra- 
zilian occupation.  It  bases  its  right,  besides,  on  the 
special  position  of  that  territory,  which  is  indispen- 
sable to  it  for  its  security  and  defence,  and  for  the 
preservation  of  inland  communications  between  Rio 
Grande  do  Sul  and  the  other  States  of  the  Brazilian 
Union.  It  accepts,  however,  all  the  historical  docu- 
ments upon  which  the  Argentine  Republic  seeks  to 
found  its  claim.  Those  documents  are  the  Treaties  of 
1750  and  1777,  the  Instructions  issued  to  the  demarcat- 
ing Commissioners,  and  an  official  Map  of  1749. 

The  Treaties,  with   the   events  that  preceded  them, 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I  5 

and  the  subsequent  surveys,  will  now  be  examined, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  the  allegations  of  the  Spanish 
Commissioners  of  1789,  and  the  arguments  which  the 
Ars'entine  Government  has  souo-ht  to  deduce  from 
them,  will  be  refuted. 


III. 


Brazil  has  been  represented  as  the  heir  to  Poi'tu- 
guese  usurpations  by  some  of  the  defenders  of  the 
Argentine  cause,  who,  taking  up  the  old  and  heated 
discussions  of  the  colonial  period,  speak,  even  now, 
of  the  celebrated  meridian  "  line  of  demarcation." 

It  is  known  that,*  in  the  XVIth  centuiy,  when 
Portugal  and- Spain  began  to  colonize  South  America, 
the  only  boundary  of  their  dominions  be- 
yond the  seas  was  the  famous  but  never  demarcation 
respected  line  of  demarcation  designated  agreed  upon 
by  Pope  Alexander  VI,  on  May  4,  1493,  ^*  Tordesiiias, 
and  modified  by  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas, 
of  June  7,  1494,  between  D.  JoÃo  II  of  Portugal, 
and  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of  Castile. 

Alexander  VI  had  divided  the  world  by  a  meri- 
dian traced  a  hundred  leasrues  to  the  West  of  the 
Azores  and  Cape  Verde  Islands.  The  lands  discovered 
to  the  East  of  that  meridian  were  to  belong  to  Portugal, 
and  to  the  AVest  to  Spain.  The  Treaty  of  Tordesillas, 
approved  by  Pope  Julius  II  (Bull  of  January  24, 
1506),  placed  the  meridian  of  demarcation  370  leagues 
to  the  West  of  the  Ca[)e  Verde  Islands. 

The  determination  of  that  imaginaiy  line  gave  rise 
until  the  XVIIIth  century  to  many  doubts  and  con- 


l6  BRAZlLlAN-ARGEiXTINE 

„    .  .       ,      troversies  which   it    would    be    useless  to 

Position  O'  „  ■■  -r  1 

that  line  which  refer  to  here.  It  suffices  to  say  that,  ac- 
couid  only  be  coidiug  to  the  kuowledge  we  have  at  the 
the  middle  of  P^'^sent  day,  the  terminal  point  of  the  370 
the  xviiith.  leagues,  counted  from  the  most  AVestern 
century.  extremity  of    the  island    of    Santo    Antáo 

of  Cape  Verde,  is  in  Longitude  48°  35'  25"  West  of 
Greenwich,  on  the  hypothesis,  little  favorable  to  Brazil, 
as  Varnhagen  says,'  that  those  leagues  wei-e  of  1()| 
to  the  degree,^  and  not  of  15,  as  Columbus,  Amerigo 
Vespucci,  and  other  navigators,  Spanish  or  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Spain,  reckoned  them  at  the  time  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  New  World.'  In  the  opposite  hemisphere, 
this  line  of  demarcation,  therefore,  corresponded  to  131° 
24'  35"  of  Longitude  East  of  Greenwich. 

These  leagues  being  counted  at  the  rate  of  17^  to 
the  degree,  as  the  Spaniards  afterwards  wished  them 
to  be, — which  is  an  anachronism,  since  such  a  rule  of 
computation  did  not  exist  when  the  Treaty  of  Torde- 
sillas  was  concluded,^ — the  terminal  point  would  be 
47°  29'  05"  West  of  Greenwicli.' 

'  Viscount  de  Porto-Seguro  (Varnhagen),  Historia  Geral  do  Brazil,  2d 
ed.,  p.  69. 

-  E  NCI  so.  Suma  de  Geographia  que  trata  de  todas  las  partidas  y  províncias 
del  mundo,  151Q;  and  Francisco  Falero  (Falleiro),  Del  tratado  de  la 
esphera  y  del  arte  del  marear,     .     .     .      1535. 

Concerning  Enciso  and  his  work  Marrisse  says  :  "  A  great  hydrographer 
and  explorer,  his  work  is  invaluable  for  the  early  geographical  history  of  this 
continent." 

■' De  orbe  novo  Petri  martyris  ab  Angleria,  Alcala,  1530,  fol.  Ixxviij., 
verso  :  "...  Si  computationem  leucarum  sumpserimus  nauiarum 
hispanorum  more,  13  continet  quisque  gradtis  leucas  :  ipsi  vero  contra  omnium 
opinionem  aiunt  gradum  continere  leucas  17  cum  i." 

■•  Varnhagen,  Examen  de  quelques  poitits  de  I'  Histoire  Gt'ographique  du 
Brésil,  Paris,  1858,  p.  36. 

*  These  calculations  were  made  starting  from  the  Western  point  of  the  Island 
of  Santo  .\ntao,  if  5'  30"  N.  Lat.  and  27'  42'  30"  of  Longitude  W.  from 
Paris  (Greenwich  West  of  Paris  2'  20   14").       A  league  of  165  to  the  equatorial 


P()KTU(iAL.  AND  SPAIN  atTordesillns,7«'Jutie.l494. 


KN-ruE  PORTUGAL  k  HESPAXHA,  it  1  «le  Jimho  de  M.i)4. 

i^Si  Hrmiuaphono  poriu^ex  '   Be  a  linlui  ile  Ueiuarcl^ãn  pasiuwse  k  Oi  Mte  dos  Muluciis, 
^^  H^misplicrio  n^sponhul '  entre  Jnva  t-  Siiinaxra.,  segundo  nnn-aro  f  aprpitfjiçãn  li-'sj 


O 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  IJ 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Portuguese  in  Brazil 
occupied  a  great  extent  of  laud  to  the  West  of  that 
line,  but  that  occupation  was  effected  in 

1     p   •  1     1       •  1       -«TTTTT  111  Both  Govern- 

good  taitn  during  the  XV  11th  and  the  be-  ments  over- 
ginning  of  the  XVIIIth  century,  when  the  stepped  the 
reckonings  of  longitude  could  not  be  made  '"jjj°g  before 
with  the  accuracy  of  the  present  day,  and  the  xviiith 
the  exact  measure  of  an  equatorial  degree  century. 

was  not  known.  The  old  maps  of  South  America  located 
that  continent  much  more  to  the  East  than  it  is.  In  the 
last  volume  just  published  of  the  Histoire  de  la  O^éo- 
graphie  de  Madagascar^  M.  Grandidiep.  compares  the 
positions  indicated  in  the  maps  of  the  XVIth  and 
XVIIIth  centuries  and  finds  differences  of  more  than 
32°  of  longitude. 

Spain  also  overstepped  her  allotted  hemisphere. 

The  first  controversy  to  which  the  Treaty  of  Torde- 
sillas  gave  rise  related  to  the  ownership  of  the  Moluc- 
cas, Spain  maintaining  that  those  islands,  occupied  by 
the  Portuguese,  were  within  the  Spanish  hemisphere. 
The  agreement  signed  at  Saragoça  on  April  22, 1529,  set- 
tled the  question,  Portugal  paying  to  Spain  tlie  [)rice 
asked  for  the  Moluccas  and  for  the  transfer  of  the  line 
of  demarcation  in  Oceania  17°  to  the  East  of  those  islands. 
The  new  boundary  in  the  East  passed  through  the  Velas, 
now  the  Marianne  or  Ladrone  Islands,  in  Polynesia. 

Later  on,  Spain  violated  the  agreements  of  Saragoça 
and  Tordesillas  by  occupying  the  Philippine  Islands, 
which,  as  well  as  the  Moluccas,  were  within  the  Por- 
tuo-uese  limits. 

It  is,  therefore,  unjust  to  attribute  usurpations  to 

degree  =  6.678™,  396.  The  370  leagues  in  Latitude  17°  05'  30'  give  23"  13' 
09".  The  league  of  17^  to  the  degree  =  6.360™,  377.  In  the  same  Lat.  they 
give  22°  06'  48". 


1 8  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  K  GEN  TINE 

one  side  while  keeping  silence  regarding  those  of  the 

other,  and  to    accuse   the    Portuguese    of 

Un  ounded       falsifyiim',  in  their  i;eos:ra])hical  maps  of  the 

accusations.         ^z'  ^  ooi^  i 

XVIth  and  XVIIth  centuries,  tlie  i)<)siti(>n 
of  Brazil.  No  one  having  any  acquaintance  witli 
geographical  history  can  take  such  an  accusation 
seriously.  It  is  more  loyal  and  dignified  and  truth- 
ful to  admit  that  both  Portuguese  and  Spaniards 
Were  then  acting  in  good  faith,  and  to  forget  errors  and 
contradictions  which  have  no  connection  with  the 
present  controversy.  Astronomical  and  geograj^hical 
knowledge  was  then  very  incomplete,  and  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  good  faith  of  the  Spaniai-ds  was 
also  suspected,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  pas- 
sao-e  of  d'Anville  : 

"Herreka  had  his  own  motive  for  thus  reducing 
the  extent  of  the  South  Sea ;  it  was  to  enclose  the 
Philippines  and  the  Moluccas  within  the  limits  of  the 
concession  made  to  the  King  of  Castile  by  Alexander 
VI :  for  this  Pope,  having  divided  the  circumference 
of  the  Earth  into  two  portions  of  180  degrees  of  k:)ngi- 
tude  each,  between  the  Kings  of  Castile  and  Portugal, 
had  attributed  to  the  former  the  Western  part,  reckon- 
ing it  at  a  certain  distance  from  the  Azores  towards 
the  West.  By  nai'rowing  the  South  Sea,  the  Castilian 
writer  found  means  of  pushing  the  meridian  or  line  of 
demarcacion,  according  to  the  Spanish  term,  as  far  as 
the  Strait  of  Sunda,  between  Java  and  Sumatra ;  other- 
wise the  islands  in  question  would  have  appeared  to 
be  comprised  in  the  concession  made  to  Portugal :  but 
geograj)hy  could  not  lend  itself,  if  such  an  expression 
may  be  used,  to  this  political  arrangement."  ^ 

D'Anville,  Mesure  conjectiiraU  de  la  terre  sur  V iquateur,    Paris,    1736,  in 


12. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I9 

If  the  line  of  demarcation  passed  between  Java  and 
Sumatra,  as  the  Spaniards  pretended  in  the  XVIth  cen- 
tury, nearly  the  whole  of  South  America  would  be 
within  the  180  degrees  of  longitude  attributed  to 
Poi'tugal. 

One  of  the  most  renowned  Ministers  of  State  that 
Spain  ever  had,  Count  de  Floridablanca,  recognized 
the  inadvertence  of  those  who  in  the  XVIIth  century 
thought  it  possible  to  restore  the  line  of  Tordesillas.  In 
1781  he  said  :  "...  To  extend  our  possessions  in 
Brazil,  as  some  appear  to  desire,  by  virtue  of  the  famous 
division  made  by  Alexander  VI.,  is  a  project  impos- 
sible of  execution,  and,  what  is  more,  contrary  to 
anterior  agreements.  Moreover,  admitting  the  princi- 
ple, we  should  have  to  surrender  to  the  Portuguese  the 
Philippine  Islands,  which,  according  to  the  demarcation 
made  by  that  Pontiff,  belong  to  them."  ' 

From  1580  to  1640  the  two  Crowns  of  Portugal 
and  Spain  were  united  and,  therefore,  both  ^^^  grazii 
Brazil    and    the    Spanish    possessions    in      as  it  is  now 

,        , ,  ,  was  formed. 

America  were  under  the  same  sceptre. 

It  was  during  the  time  of  this  union  that  the  fron- 
tiers of   Brazil,  even    then  undefined,   be-       ^^^^^^e^o. 
cause    the    true    position    of    the   line    of 
Tordesillas  was  not  known  with  certainty,  began  to  be 

enlarged. 

In  1637  (14th  June),  Philip  IV  of  Spain,  at  the  same 
time  King  of  Portugal  under  the  name  of  Philip  III, 
created  the  Captaincy  of  Cabo  do  Norte  and  annexed 
it  to  Brazil,  giving  it  as  its  Northern  boundary  the 

»  Memorandum  presented  to  Carlos  III.,  of  Spain  (lO  Oct.,  1788),  hy  Count 
de  Floridahlanca  (Vol.  59  of  the  Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espanoles).  Transcribed 
Vol.  IV.  of  this  Statement  of  Brazil,  pp.  129-133,  and  translated  in  Vol.  III., 
pp.  137-141. 


20  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

river  Vicente  PinçoD,  a  name  which  the  Oyapock  also 
had  at  the  time. 

On  August  10,  1639,  Pedro  Teixeira,  obeying 
the  instructions  of  the  same  King,  took  possession 
of  the  left  bank  of  the  Napo,  establishing  there  the 
Western  boundary  of  the  lands  of  the  Portuguese 
Crown  on  the  North  of  the  Amazonas. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Brazilians  of  S.  Paulo,  called 
Paulistas,  continuing  their  expeditions  into  the  interior, 
drove  out  the  Spaniards  and  their  Jesuit  missionaries 
from  the  positions  they  occupied  in  teri'itoi'ies  con- 
sidered to  be  within  the  Portuguese  demarcation  :  (m 
the  Upper  Paraguay ;  to  the  East  of  the  Paraná,  be- 
tween the  Paranapanema  and  the  Iguaçu ;  and,  more 
to  the  South,  to  the  East  of  the  Uruguay. 

The  revolution  of  the  Independence  of  Portugal  in 
16-40  found  Brazil  increased  in  the  North  by  the  terri- 
tories that  were  annexed  to  it  by  the  King 
of  Spain,  to  the  West  and  South  by  tliose 
which  had  been  conquei-ed  by  the  Paulistas,  but  de- 
prived of  all  the  seaboard  from  the  Rio  Real  to  the 
Maranhão,  then  occupied  by  the  Dutch.  That  part  of 
Brazil  only  returned  to  the  Portuguese  dominion  in 
1654. 

The  war  with  Spain  ended  with  the  recognition  of 
the   independence    of    Portugal.      In    the   Treaty  of 
Peace  signed  at  Lisbon  on  February   18, 
o/^66^  1668,  nothing  was  stipulated  as  to  boun- 

daries in  Ameiica.  Article  2  provided  for 
a  mutual  I'estoration  of  the  strongholds  conquered 
"during  the  war,"  the  two  Kingdoms  to  keep 
the  "boundaries  and  frontiers  they  had  before  the 
war." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  21 

In  1680,  the  Governor  of  Rio  cle  Janeiro,  D. 
Mangel  Lobo,  in  fulfilment  of  instruc-  Disputes  and 
tions  received  from  Lisbon,  occupied  the  hostilities, 
left  bank  of  the  River  Plate,  which  was  reputed 
by  the  Portuguese  the  Southern  boundary 
of  Brazil,  and  there  founded,  almost  in  Sacramento 
front  of  Buenos  Aires,  Colónia  do  Sacra- 
mento. In  the  same  year,  and  by  order  of  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Buenos- Aires,  the  new  settlement  T^ken  by  the 
was  invested  and  taken  by  storm  by  a  Spaniards, 
numerous  army  of  Spaniards  and  Guarany  *^^°' 

Indians. 

As  soon  as  he  was  informed  of  this  occurrence,  Car- 
los II  of  Spain  sent  to  Lisbon,  as  his  Ambassador 
Extraordinary,  the  Duke  of  Giovenazzo,  Restored  to 
charged  to  give  the  fullest  satisfaction  to  Portugal, 
the  Prince  Reçrent  of  Portuo-al,  afterwards  ^^^'' 

King  D.  Pedro  II.  The  Provisional  Treaty  of  May 
7,  1681,  was  then  signed  in  that  city,  by  which 
Colónia  returned  to  the  Portuguese  dominion,  it  being 
agreed  that  the  question  of  right  should  be  examined 
by  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  two  Governments. 

The  old  discussion  as  to  the  true  position  of  the 
meridian  of  Tordesillas  and  its  points  of  intersection 
with  the  littoral  of  South  America,  was  then  renewed, 
but  it  was  not  possible  to  come  to  any  agreement. 

During  the  war  of  Succession,  the  Spaniards  besieged 
and  attacked  Colónia  (1704-1705),  which  was  defended 
by  General  Veiga  Cabral,  By  order  of  Evacuated 
the  King,  D.  Pedro  IL,  who  was  unable  by  the  Portu- 
to  relieve  it,  the  fortress  was  evacuated  &"^se,  1705. 
and  fell  for  the  second  time  into  the  possession  of  the 
Spaniards. 


22  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

The  Treaty  of  February  0,  1715,  signed  at  Utreclit/ 
restored  it  ''  with  its  territory  "  to  Portugal,  the 
Returnsto  the  I'^iiig  of  Spain  renouncing  all  his  rights 
Portuguese  do- aud  claims  (Arts.  Õ  and  6),  with  only  the 
minion   y     e  (.^^j^jj^jj^j^  X\\qX  he  mifi^lit  offer,  within  the 

Treaty  of  &  '  ^ 

Utrecht,  1715.  period  of  one  year  and  a  half,  an  equiva- 
lent, which  the  King  of  Poitugal  might  or  might  not 
accept,  for  the  said  "  territoiy  and  Colónia  "  (Art.  7). 
The  Governor  of   Buenos-Aires,  however,   restored 
only  Colónia  and  the  land  within  cannon-shot  of  the 
fortress.      The     Portuguese     Government 
ew   ispu  es.  pj.^^^^gi^g^]^    maintaining    that     what     was 

understood  at  Utrecht  by  the  "  territory  and  Colónia" 
was  all  the  left  l)ank  of  the  River  Plate,  but  the  Court 
of  Madrid  would  not  admit  that  interpretation  of  the 
text  which  really  was  not  very  clear. 

From  1735  to  1737,  the  fortress  of  Colónia,  then 
commanded  by  General  Vasconcellos,  was  again 
Third  siege  of  attacked  and  besieged  by  the  Sjianiards. 
Colónia.  ^11  ex[)edition  which  came  out  from  Colónia 

under  the  command  of  General  Silva  Paes,  occupied 
,  (Februai-y  19,  1737)  and  fortified  the  bar 

Occupation  of    ^  i   •  1  •  ' 

Rio  Grande  do  of  the  Rio  Gi'aude  do  Sul  au<l  esta1)lished 
Sul  by  the  Por- the  military  posts  of  Tahim,  Chuy,  and 
'"^"""  S.  Miguel. 

In  the  territory  of  Rio  Grande  do  Sul  there  were 
already,  to  the  North  of  the  Jacuhy,  several  Portuguese 
settlements  founded  by  Brazilians  of  Laguna,  Curityba, 
and  S.  Paulo. 

By  the  Armistice  signed  at  Paris  on  March  16,  1737, 
the    Portuguese    and    Spanish    Governments    agreed 

'  Borges  de  Castro,  CoIUcçõo  de  Tratados  ;  C.  Calvo,  Recueil  de  Traités. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  23 

Armistice  of  to  issue  oi'dei's  foi"  the  cessation  of  hostili- 
1737-  ties  in  America,  to  preserve  matters  in  the 

state  in  which  they  might  be  at  the  moment  of  the 
arrival  of  those  orders,  until  a  definitive  settlement  of 
the  pending  claims. 

IV. 

These  continual  disputes  and   hostilities  at  length 
convinced   the   two  Governments   that   it 
was   expedient    to    determine  clearly  and    gpain  recog- 
permauently  the  limits  of  their  dominions  nize  the  neces- 
in   America  and  in    the  East  Indies,    re-^^*/^"'^^'.^^^' 

'  ty  of  Limits. 

nouncing    claims    which    the    progress   of 
geographical   knowledge    had    made   it  impossible  to 
sustain. 

Negotiations  were  entered  upon  which  proceeded 
with  greater  activity  after  Spain,  by  the  peace  of  Aix-la 
Chapelle  (18th  October,  1748),  freed  herself  from  other 
cares  abroad.  From  these  negotiations  resulted  the 
Treaty  of  Madrid  of  the  1 3th  January,  1 750,^  Treaty  of  Ma- 
the  first  agreement  on  limits  between  the  drid,  13  jan>' 
two  Crowns  in  which   appears  the  Pepiry  ^^^°" 

or  Pequiry,  the  subject  of  the  controversy  raised  in 
1789  by  the  Spanish  Commissioners  and  lately  revived 
by  the  Argentine  Government. 

The  apparent  negotiator  of  the  Treaty  on  the  part  of 
Portugal  was  Major-General  Thoíiaz  da  Silva  Telles, 
Viscount  de  Villa  Nova  de  Cerveira,  Ambassador 
Extraordinary  at  Madrid,  and,  on  the  part  Alexandre  de 
of  Spain,  the  Minister  of  State  D.  Joseph         Gusmão. 

1  Portuguese  text  in  Vol.  IV.,  translation  into  English  in  Vol.  III.,  first 

document. 


24  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

DE  Carvajal  y  Lancaster  ;  but  tlie  actual  exponent  of 
the  cause  of  Portugal  aud  Brazil  and  of  the  true  interests 
of  America  in  that  discussion  was  the  celebrated  Brazil- 
ian statesman  and  diplomatist  Alexandre  de  Gusmão.* 
In  the  conferences  that  preceded  the  signing  of  the 
Treaty   it   was   resolved    that    the   layinsr 

Natural  boun-  «.•  •  t  (.i  . 

daries  instead  down  of   imaginary  lines  of   demarcation 
of  imaginary    should  be  entirely  renounced,  that  boun- 
daries should  be  determined  by  the  most 
notable  and    best    known  rivers  and   mountains,  and 
that  each  one  of  the  Contracting  Parties 

Uti  possidetis.     777  •        •  •  /•        7    ^     •• 

shoidd  remain  m  possession  of  what  it 
held  at  that  date,  excepting  such  mutual  cessions  as 
might  be  made. 

Portugal  agreed  to  surrender  Colónia  do  Sacramento 
and  the  left  bank  of  the  Amazonas  to  the  West  of  the 

Westernmost  mouth  of  the  Japurá,  to  re- 
sions  iiounce  its  rights  over  the  Philippines,  and 

to  give  up  its  claim  to  the  restitution  of 
the  price  unduly  paid  for  the  Moluccas  under  the 
agreement  of  Saragoça.  Spain  agreed  to  recognize  all 
the  Portuguese  possessions  in  America  and  to  surren- 
der the  territoiy  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Uruguay  to 
the  North  of  the  Ibicuhy  in  exchange  for  Colónia  do 
Sacramento  and  of  the  territory  contested  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  River  Plate. 

The  study  of  the  Treaty  of  1750  leaves  the  most 
keen  and  gratifying  impression  of  the  good  faith,  loy- 
alty, and  breadth  of  view  which  inspired  that  amica- 

'  He  was  then  private  Secretary  to  King  D.  JoAO  V.,  a  member  of  the 
Colonial  Council  (Ministro  do  Conselho  Ultramarino),  and  a  member  of  the 
Royal  Academy  of  History.  He  had  been  Secretary  to  the  Portuguese  Em- 
bassy at  Paris,  and  Envoy  Extraordinary  at  Rome.  On  that  occasion  he 
refused  the  title  of  Prince  offered  to  him  by  the  Pope.  He  was  born  at  Santos 
in  1695,  and  died  at  Lisbon  in  1753. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  25 

ble.  settlement  of  old  and  petty  quarrels  by  consulting 
only  the  superior  principles  of  reason  and  justice  and 
the  requirements  of  peace  and  civilization  in  America. 
At  that  moment,  as  the  English  historian,  Robert 
SouTHEY  says,  the  contracting  Sovereigns,  D.  João  V.  of 
Portugal  and  Ferdinaííd  VI.  of  Spain,  knew  how  to 
show  themselves  far  in  advance  of  their  century.^ 

The  Preamble  of  the  Treaty  summarizes  the  allega- 
tions presented  by  both  parties,  the  con-  preamble  of 
elusions  at  which  they  arrived,  and  the  the  Treaty  of 
principles  and  rules  they  adopted. 

This  Preamble,  drawn  up,  as  was  nearly  the  whole 
of  the  Treaty,  by  Alexaxdre  de  Gusmào,  says  : 

"The  Most  Serene  Kings  of  Portugal  and  Spain, 
wishing  eifectively  to  consolidate  and  make  closer  the 
sincere  and  cordial  friendship  they  profess  for  each 
other,  have  considered  that  the  means  most  conducive 
to  the  attainment  of  so  salutary  a  purpose  are  to  re- 
move all  pretexts  and  clear  away  all  impediments  that 
may  in  future  impair  it,  and  particularly  such  as  may 
arise  with  reference  to  the  Boundaries  in  America  of 
the  two  Crowns,  xohose  Conquests  have  advanced  toith 
uncertainty  and  douht,  because,  until  noiv,  The  imaginary 
the  true  Boundaries  of  those  Dominions,  or  <i--'°-'  '*-• 
the  position  in  which  must  be  imagined  the  Divisional 
Line,  which  tuas  to  be  the  unalterable  p)rinciple  of  the 
demarcation  for  both  Crowns,  have  not  been  ascertained. 

'  "  The  language  and  the  whole  tenor  of  this  memorable  Treaty  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  sincerity  and  good  intentions  of  the  two  Courts  ;  the  two  contract- 
ing Sovereigns  seem  indeed  to  have  advanced  beyond  their  age.  They 
proceeded  with  an  uprightness  which  might  almost  be  considered  new  to 
diplomacy  ;  and  in  attempting  to  establish  a  perpetual  peace  in  their  colonies, 
whatever  disputes  might  occur  between  them  in  Europe,  they  set  an  example 
worthy  of  being  held  in  remembrance  as  a  practicable  means  of  lessening  the 
calamities  of  war."  (Robert  Southey,  History  0/ Brazil,  London,  1817-1819, 
III.  vol.,  page  448.) 


26  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

And  considering  the  invincible  dijficulties  lohich  would 
arise  if  this  Line  had  to  he  marhed  with  the  requisite 
practical  hnoioledge,  they  have  resolved  to  examine  the 
reasons  and  uncertainties  that  may  be  urged  by  both 
parties,  and,  in  view  of  them,  to  conclude  an  agree- 
ment to  their  mutual  satisfaction  and  convenience. 

"  On  the  part  of  the  Crown  of  Portugal  it  was 
alleged  that,  inasmuch  as  it  was  to  reckon  the   one 

hundred  and  eighty  degrees  of  its  demar- 
ciaimf"*'"         cation  fi'oni  the  line  to  the  East,  the  other 

one  hundred  and  eighty  to  the  West  re- 
maining for  Spain  ;  and  while  each  one  of  the  Nations 
was  to  make  its  discoveries  and  establish  its  Colonies 
within  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  degrees  of  its 
demarcation  ;  nevertheless  it  is  found  that,  according 
to  the  most  exact  and  recent  observations  of  Astrono- 
mers and  Geographers,  beginning  to  count  the  degrees 
to  the  West  of  the  said  Line,  the  Spanish  Dominion  at 
the  Asiatic  extremity  of  the  South  Sea  extends  to 
many  more  degrees  than  the  one  hundred  and  eighty 
of  its  demarcation  ;  and  that  consequently  it  has  occu- 
pied a  much  larger  space  than  any  excess  attributed  to 
the  Portuguese  can  amount  to  in  that  which  perhaps 
they  may  have  occupied  in  South  America  to  the  West 
of  the  same  Line,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  Spanish 
demarcation. 

"  It  was  also  alleged  that  by  the  Deed  of  Sale  with 
an  agi-eement  as  to  I'epurchase  (com  pacto  de  retroven- 
dendo)  entered  into  by  the  Attorneys  of  the  two 
Crowns  at  Saragossa  on  the  22d  of  April,  1529,  the 
Crown  of  Spain  sold  to  the  Crown  of  Portugal  all 
that  by  whatsoever  means  or  right  appertained  to  it 
to   the   West   of   another   imaginary   Meridian   Line, 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  2/ 

through  the  Velas  Islands/  situated  on  the  South 
Sea,  at  a  distance  of  17°  from  Maluco/  with  the  dec- 
laration that  if  Spain  allowed  and  did  not  prevent  its 
subjects  from  navigating  to  the  AVestward  of  the  said 
Line,  then  the  agreement  as  to  repui-chase  should  at 
once  be  rescinded  and  become  void  ;  and  that  when 
any  Spanish  subjects,  through  ignorance  or  through 
necessity,  should  pass  within  the  Line,  and  discover 
any  islands  or  lands,  whatever  might  be  so  discovered 
should  belong  to  Portugal.  That  notwithstanding 
this  convention,  the  Spaniards  subsequently  proceeded 
to  discover  the  Philippines  and,  in  fact,  settled  therein 
shortly  before  the  union  of  the  two  Crowns,  which 
took  place  in  the  year  1580,  and  on  account  of  which 
the  controversies  between  the  two  Nations  caused  by 
this  contravention  ceased  ;  but  when  they  had  again 
separated,  the  conditions  of  the  Deed  of  Saragossa 
gave  rise  to  a  new  title  by  which  Portugal  may  claim 
restitution  of  or  equivalent  for  all  that  the  Spaniards 
had  occupied  to  the  West  of  said  Line,  in  violation  of 
that  which  had  been  capitulated  in  the  aforesaid  Deed. 
"  As  to  the  Teriitory  of  the  Northern  bank  of  the 
Kiver  Plate,  it  was  alleged  that,  because  of  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Colónia  do  Sacramento,  a  controversy  arose 
between  the  two  Crowns,  relative  to  Boundaries  :  that 
is  to  say,  as  to  whether  the  lands  upon  which  that  for- 
tress was  built,  wei-e  to  the  East  or  to  the  West  of  the 
Boundary  Line  agreed  upon  in  Tordesillas  ;  and,  while 
this  question  was  being  decided,  a  provisional  Treaty 
was  concluded  at  Lisbon  on  the  7th  of  May,  1681,  by 
which  it  was  agreed  that  the  aforesaid  fortress  should 
remain  in  the  possession  of  the  Portuguese  ;  and  that 

'  Now  Marianne  or  Ladrones  Islands. 

-  Moluccas  Islands. 


28  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

they  should  have  in  coumiou  with  tlie  Spaniards  the 
use  and  beneiit  of  the  hinds  in  dispute.  That  by 
Article  VI.  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  concluded  at  Utrecht 
between  the  two  Crowns,  on  the  6th  of  February,  1715, 
His  Catholic  Majesty  ceded  all  action  and  right  he 
may  have  had  to  Colónia  and  its  Territory,  the  Pro- 
visional Treaty  being  abolished  by  virtue  of  cession. 
That  whereas  by  virtue  of  the  same  cession  the  ^vhole 
of  the  disputed  Territory  was  to  be  delivered  to  the 
Crown  of  Portugal,  the  Governor  of  Buenos- Ayres  in- 
tended to  surrender  only  the  fortress,  saying  that  by 
Territory  he  only  understood  what  was  within  cannon- 
shot  of  it,  I'eservang  to  the  Crown  of  Spain  all  the 
other  lands  in  dispute,  on  which  was  afterwards 
founded  the  Fortress  of  Montevideo  and  other  estab- 
lishments :  That  this  interpretation  of  the  Governor  of 
Buenos-Ayres  was  manifestly  opposed  to  what  had 
been  agreed,  it  being  evidence  that  the  Crown  of 
Spain,  by  means  of  its  own  cession,  could  not  be  placed 
in  a  better  position  than  that  in  which  it  was  before, 
in  regard  to  the  same  thing  that  it  had  ceded ;  and 
that  both  Nations,  having  by  the  Provisional  Treaty 
been  left  in  common  possession  and  enjoyment  of  those 
Plains,  there  is  no  more  violent  interpretation  than  to 
suppose  that,  by  means  of  the  cession  of  His  Catholic 
Majesty,  they  were  vested  exclusively  in  his  Crown. 

"  That  inasmuch  as  that  Territory  belongs  to  Portu 
gal  by  a  title  diil'erent  from  that  of  the  Boundary  Line 
defined  at  Tordesillas  (that  is  to  say,  by  the  agree- 
ment made  in  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  in  which  His 
Catholic  Majesty  ceded  his  right  under  the  old  de- 
marcation), such  Tei-i'itory  ought,  independently  of 
questions  concerning  that  Line,  to    be   entirely   sur- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  29 

rendered  to  Portugal,  together  with  everything  which 
might  newly  have  been  l)uilt  upon  it,  as  having  )>een 
erected  upon  foreign  soil.  Lastly  that,  assuming  that 
His  Catholic  Majesty  had  reserved  the  right  of  offering 
an  equivalent,  to  the  satisfaction  of  His  Most  Faithful 
Majesty,  for  the  said  Colónia  and  its  Territory,  never- 
theless as  many  years  had  elapsed  since  the  expiration 
of  the  terms  fixed  for  this  offer,  every  pretext  or  mo- 
tive, even  ap[)arent,  for  delaying  the  cession  of  the 
same  Territory  has  ceased  to  exist. 

"  On  the  Part  of  tlie  Crown  of  Spain  it  was  alleged 
that  as  a  Line  from  North  to  South  was  to  be  imagined 
three  hundred  and  seventy  leagues  West 

r\  -VTiTi  ^        '  1  Spanish  claims. 

of  the  Cape  \  erde  Islands,  in  accordance 
with  the  Treaty  concluded  at  Tordesillas  on  the 
7th  of  June,  1494,  all  the  land  that  might  lie  within 
the  three  hundred  and  seventy  leagues  from  the  said 
islands  to  the  place  where  the  Line  ought  to  be 
laid  down,  belongs  to  Portugal,  and  nothing  more  in 
this  direction ;  because  the  one  hundred  and  eighty 
desrrees  of  the  demarcation  of  Si)ain  must  be  counted 
thence  Westward  :  ;::id,  although,  because  it  is  not 
stated  from  which  of  the  Q^>e,  Verde  Islands  the  three 
hundred  and  seventy  leagues  are  to  be  reckoned,  a 
doubt  has  arisen,  and  this  point  is  of  great  interest, 
seeing  that  they  are  all  situated  East  and  West  with  a 
difference  of  four  and  a  half  degrees  ;  it  is  certain  also 
that,  even  if  Spain  yielded,  and  consented  that  the 
counting  should  begin  from  the  most  Westerly,  which 
is  named  Santo  Antão,  the  thi-ee  hundred  and  seventy 
leagues  would  scarcely  extend  as  far  as  the  City  of 
Pará,  and  other  Colonies,  or  Portuguese  Captaincies 
founded  formerly  on  the  coasts  of  Brazil ;  and  as  the 


30  BRA  ZIL  IA  N-ARGEN  TINE 

Crown  of  Portugal  has  ()ccn[)iecl  the  two  banks  of  the 
River  Amazonas,  or  Marafion,  up  as  far  as  the  mouth 
of  the  River  Javari,  which  flows  into  it  ))y  the 
Southern  bank,  it  clearly  follows  that  it  has  encroached 
upon  the  territory  of  the  Spanish  demai'cation  to  the 
extent  of  the  distance  of  the  said  City  fi-om  the  mouth 
of  the  said  river,'  the  same  being  the  case  in  the  in- 
terior of  Brazil  with  regard  to  the  advance  inward 
made  by  this  Crown  to  Cuyabá  and  Matto-Gi'osso. 

"  With  regard  to  Colónia  do  Saci'amento,  it  was  al- 
leged that,  according  to  the  most  accurate  Maps,  the 
place  at  which  the  Line  ought  to  be  imagined  does  not 
reach  by  a  long  distance  the  mouth  of  the  River  Plate; 
and,  consequently,  the  said  Colónia  with  all  its  Terri- 
tory lies  to  the  West  of  it,  and  ^vithin  the  boundary 
of  Spain,  without  prejudice  to  the  new  right  under 
which  the  Crown  of  Portugal  retains  it  by  virtue  of 
the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  since  restitution  by  an  equiva- 
lent was  stipulated  therein  ;  and  although  the  Court 
of  Spain  offered  the  equivalent  Avithin  the  i)eriod  pre- 
scribed ))y  Article  VIL,  that  of  Portugal  did  not  accept 
it;  on  which  account  the  period  was  extended,  the 
equivalent  being,  as  it  was,  proportionate  ;  and  the 
not  havinj?  admitted  it  "was  more  throuo-h  the  fault  of 
Portugal  than  that  of  Spain. 

"  These  reasons  having  been  seen  and  examined  by  the 

two  Most  Serene  Monarchs  with  the  replications  that 

were  made  on  both  sides,  proceeding  with 

Impossibility  of  ^1^^^^         (J  fj^j^ij  j^j^j  sincerity  which  is  so 

maintaining  ~  J 

the  imaginary     becouiiug  iu  Priuces  SO  lust,  so  friendly,  and 

boundary  line.  _  ...  .  ... 

who  are  related,  wishing  to  maintain  their 

'  It  has  already  been  said  that  by  a  decision  of  the  King  of  Spain,  at  the 
same  time  King  of  Portugal,  all  the  right  bank  of  the  Amazonas  as  far  as  the 
Napo  had  been  annexed  to  tiie  dominions  of  the  Portuguese  Crown  in  1639. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  3I 

Subjects  in  peace  and  (|uietuess,  and  recognizing  the 
difficulties  and  doubts  which  in  all  time  would  compli- 
cate this  controversy,  if  it  had  to  be  decided  by  means 
of  the  demarcation  adjusted  in  Tordesillas,  both  ])e- 
cause  it  was  not  stated  from  which  of  the  Cape  Verde 
Islands  the  three  liundred  and  seventy  leagues  was  to 
be  reckoned,  and  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  deter- 
mining on  the  coasts  of  South  America  the  two  points 
on  the  South  and  North  from  which  the  Line  was  to 
begin ;  on  account,  also,  of  the  moral  impossibility  of 
establishing  accurately  through  the  centre  of  the  same 
America  a  Meridian  Line ;  and.,  lastly,  on  account  of  many 
other  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  tchich  woidd 
occur  in  tlie  way  of  'preserviny  without  controversy  or 
encroachment  a  demarcation  regulated  hy  Meridian 
Lines;  and  considering  at  the  same  time  that  the  said 
difficulties  were  perhaps  in  the  past  the  chief  cause  of 
the  encroachments  set  out  by  both  parties,  and  of  the 
numerous  conflicts  which  disturbed  the  peace  of  their 
Dominions ;  they  have  resolved  to  put  an  end  to  past 
and  future  disputes,  and  to  forget  and  desist  from  all 
actions  and  j-ights  that  they  may  have  by  virtue  of  the 
said  Treaties  of  Tordesillas,  Lisbon,  Utrecht,  and  the 
Deed  of  Saragossa,  or  of  any  other  grounds  whatever 
which  may  influence  them  in  the  division  of  their 
Dominions  by  a  Mei'idian  Line ;  aiul  it  is  their  will 
that  for  the  future  the  same  shall  not  he 
further  considered,  the  Boundaries  of  the  dades  and  uti 
two  Monarchies  being  reduced  to  those  which  ''°^^*''^Ídop°ed' 
a7'e  specified  in  the  present  Treaty,  it  being 
their  desire  that  tivo  purposes  shall  be  carefully  secured 
by  it :  The  first,  and  principal  one  is  that  the  Bounda- 
ries of  the  two  Dominions  shall  be  defined,  taking  as 


32  BRA /JUAN-ARGENTINE 

landmarhs  the  best  know?i  spots,  so  that  they  may  never 
be  mistaken  or  give  rise  to  disputes,  such  as  the  sources  and 
courses  of  rivers,  and  the  most  remarhahle  imountains  : 
Ttie  second,  that  each  party  shall  remain  in  possession 
of  that  which  it  holds  at  the  present  time,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  mutual  cessions,  which  shall  he  mentioned  in  the 
proper  plaÁ:e  y  which  cessions  sliall  he  carried  out  for 
mutual  convenience,  and  in  oi'der  that  the  Borders  may 
he  as  little  subject  to  controversy  as  possible^ 

Article  21  clearly  shows  tliat  the  mind  of  a  superior 
man  and  true  American  presided  over  the  making  of 
this  Treaty.  It  is  sufficient  to  reproduce  here  the 
beiiinnincn;  of  that  article : 

*'  War  being  the  principal  occasion  of  abuses  and 

the  principal  reason  for  disturbing  the  best  concerted 

rules,  Their  Most  Faithful   and    Catholic 

Peace  in  n  r    •        •        i      • 

America,  even  Majesties  dcsire  that  if  a  rupture  between 
when  the  two  t]ie  two  Ci'owns  should  occur  (which  God 
be  aTwan^^  forbid),  all  the  Subjects  of  both  who  are 
established  throughout  South  America  may 
remain  at  peace,  each  living  as  if  there  were  no  such 
war  between  their  Sovereigns,  and  without  displaying 
the  least  hostility,  either  for  themselves  alone,  or  Jointly 
with  their  Allies.  And  the  promoters  and  leaders  of 
any  invasion,  however  slight  it  may  be,  shall  be  irre- 
missibly  punished  with  the  penalty  of  death ;  and  any 
seizure  which  they  may  eifect  shall  be  restored  in  good 
faith  and  in  its  entirety." 

In   Articles  4  and   9  the   boundaries  of  Brazil  are 
determined  from  Castillos  Grandes  near  the  entrance 
The  Divi-        *^  *^^  River  Plate,  as  far  as  the  North  of 
sionai  Line  of  the  Amazonas  and  of  the  equinoctial  line. 
*^^°"  From  the  sea  coast,  at  Castillos  Grandes, 

the   divisional   line   followed   along  the   high  ground 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  33 

which  separates  the  waters  flowing  to  Lake  Mirim  and 
Rio  Grande  from  those  which  flow  to  the  River  Plate 
and  Rio  Negro ;  it  reached  thus  the  principal  source  of 
the  Ibicuhy,  and  then  went  down  along  this  river  as  far 
as  its  confluence  on  the  left  and  Eastern  bank  of  the 
Uruguay. 

Article  V,  describes  the  frontier  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Ibicuhy  as  far  as  that  of  the  Igurey  in  the  Paraná. 
In  it  are  comprised  the  Western  boundaries 
of  the  territory  now  disputed,  that  is  to  Between  the 
say,  the  present  boundaries  of  Brazil  be-  the"ieuaca 
tween  the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu. 

Article  V.  says : 

"  From  the  mouth  of  the  Ibicui,  the  Line  shall 
run  up  the  course  of  the  Uruguay  until  reaching 
the  River  Pepiri^  or  Pequiri^  which,  Article  v  of 
empties  itself  by  the  Weste?'n  Bank  of  the  the  Treaty 
Uruguay  y   and  it  shall  continue  up  the  hed  °^  ^^^°* 

of  the  Pepirl  as  far  as  the  principal  source  thereof ; 
from,  which  it  shall  folloiv  cdong  the  highest  ground  to 
the  principal  head  of  the  nearest  river  tliat     „   . 

I^  L  J  Pepiry,  or  Pe- 

m^ay  ilow  into  the  Pio  Grande  de  Curituba,  quiry,  an  affluent 

.J  .  J    r  -  T»!  -n  1  of  the  Uruguay. 

otherwise  named  Jguaçf/.  ihe  rJoimdary 
shall  continue  along  the  bed  of  the  said  River  nearest 
to  the  source  of  the  Pepiri,  and  afterwards,  along  that 
of  the  Iguaçu,  or  Rio  Grande  de  Curituba,  An  affluent  of 
until  the  point  where  the  same  Iguaçu  the  iguaçú. 
empties  itself  by  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Paraná;  and 
from  that  mouth  it  shall  go  up  the  course  of  the  Paraná, 
to  the  point  where  the  Igurey  joins  it  on  its  Western 
bank." ' 

'  Portuguese  text  of  Article  V.  :  "  "  Subirá  "(a  linha  divisória)  "  desde  a  bocca 
do  Ibicui /t'/i»  a/veo  do  Urugiiav,  ate' encontrar  o  do  rio  Pcpirí  ou  Pequirí,  que 
desagua  na  margem  Occidental  do  Uruguay  ;  e  continuará  pelo  alveo  do  Pepirl 
acima,  até  a  sua  origem  principal ;  desde  a  qual  prosegui  rd  pelo  mais  alto  do  ter» 


34  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

The  position  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiiy  was  not 
described  in  the  Treaty,  neither  was  that  of  the  other 
rivers  and  mountains  mentioned  therein, 
of  Article  V  because  the  Map  used  by  the  Plenipoten- 
tiaries, and  of  \vhich  copies  were  about  to 
be  given  to  the  Demarcating  Commissioners,  indicated 
it  with  all  possible  clearness  and  according  to  the  most 
recent  and  reliable  information. 

From  Article  V  it  is  merely  seen  that  the  Pepiry  or 
Pequiry  is  an  affluent  of  the  right  bank  of  the  Uruguay, 
a  bank  which  the  Treaty  calls  Western,  using  a  local 
and  common  expression  arising  from  the  circumstance 
that  this  river  flows  in  the  general  direction  of  North 
to  South  from  its  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  until  it 
enters  the  estuary  of  the  River  Plate.  As  in  this  lower 
part  of  the  course  of  the  Uruguay,  the  only  settlements 
then  existing  were  situated,  the  custom  began,  in  the 
XVII  century,  which  still  prevails  to-day,  of  call- 
ing the  right  bank — occidental   side  (banda  occiden- 

reno  até  a  cabeceira  principal  do  rio  mais  visinho,  que  desemboque  no  Rio  Grande 
de  Curituba,  por  outro  nome  chamado  Iguaçu.  Pelo  alveo  do  dito  rio  mais 
visinho  da  origem  do  Pepirí^  e  depois  pelo  do  Iguaçil,  ou  Rio  Grande  de  Curi- 
tuba, continuará  a  Raya  até  onde  o  mesmo  Iguaçu  desembocca  na  margem 
Oriental  do  Paraná  ;  e  desde  esta  boccaproseguirá  pelo  alveo  do  Paraná  acima, 
até  onde  se  lhe  ajunta  o  rio  Igurey  pela  sua  margem  Ocidental." 

Spanish  text:  "  Subirá  "  (a  linha  divisória)  "  desde  la  boca  del  Ybicui  por 
las  aguas  dei  Uruguay  hasta  encontrar  la  dei  rio  Pepiri  ó  Pequiri  que  desagua 
en  el  Uruguay  por  su  rivera  occidental,  y  continuará  aguas  arriva  dei  Pepiri 
hasta  su  origen  principal,  desde  el  qual  seguira  por  lo  mas  alto  dei  terreno 
hasta  la  cabecera  principal  dei  Rio  mas  vecino  dei  Origen  dei  Pepiri,  y  despues 
por  las  dei  Yguazú,  ó  Rio  Grande  de  Curituba  continuará  la  Raya  hasta  donde 
el  mismo  Yguazú  desemboca  en  el  Paraná  por  su  rivera  oriental,  y  desde  esta 
boca  seguira  aguas  arriva  dei  Paraná  hasta  donde  se  le  junta  el  Rio  V^gurey  por 
su  rivera  occidental." 

The  translation  of  the  two  texts  into  English  gives,  and  could  not  but  give, 
the  same  result,  but  the  small  differences  will  be  noted  with  which  the  Portu- 
guese and  Spaniards,  and  their  Brazilian  and  Spanish-American  descendants, 
write  the  geographical  and  native  names. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  35 

tal),  and  the  left — oriental  side  (banda  oriental).  li 
the  ex2:)ression  had  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  and  rigor- 
ous sense,  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry  of  the  Treaty  would 
be  a  river  more  to  the  West,  and  below  the  Great  Falls, 
because  the  Upper  Uruguay,  from  its  headwaters  to 
those  Falls,  follows  the  general  direction  of  East  to 
West,  and  so,  in  that  section,  its  right  side  is  the 
Northern  and  the  left  the  Southern  side. 

Faithful  to  the  idea  of  choosing  perfectly  visible 
and  indisputable  landmarks,  the  two  Governments 
designated  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry,  among  Natural 

other  reasons,  because  it  was  the  first  im-  landmarks. 
portant  affluent  of   the  right  bank   of   the    Uruguay 

immediately  above  its  Great  Falls  (Salto     ^       _  . 

1  \      'rni  -1  /.     ^'■^^^  Falls. 

Grande).     They  preferred  the  tributary  of 

the  Iguaçu  nearest  to  the  Pepiry,  not  only  because  it 
was  necessary  to  seek  in  that  region  a  natural  line  in  a 
Northerly  direction,  but  also  because  this  Great  Falls 
affluent  would  certainly  have  its  mouth  a  of  the  Iguaçu, 
little  above  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Iguaçu  (Salto  Grande 
do  Iguaçu).  And  in  the  Paraná,  when  the  line  had  to 
incline  to  the  West,  seeking  the  basin  of  Great  Fails 
the  Paraguay,  they  chose  the  Igurey,  the  of  the  Paraná, 
first  affluent  below  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Paraná  (Salto 
Grande  do  Paraná),  or  Salto  das  Sete  Quedas  (Cataract 
of  the  Seven  Falls). 

In  this  manner,  the  three  Great  Falls  of  the  Uru- 
guay, Iguaçu,  and  Paraná,  would  become  so  many 
natural  and  indestructible  landmarks,  signalizing  the 
proximity  of  the  confines  of  the  two  dominions  in  three 
of  the  most  important  knots  of  the  extensive  and  wind- 
ins^  divisional  line.  The  distance  between  the  mouths 
of  each  one  of  these  rivers  and  the  neii^hborinii  cataract 
being  determined,  the  situation  of  three  out  of  the  four 


36  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

points  at  wliicb  in  that  region  the  frontier  line  changed 
its  direction  could  not  leave  room  for  doubts  or  contro- 
versies. The  fourth  of  the  points  of  deflection  was  also 
well  indicated  by  the  mouth  of  the  Iguaçu. 

In  respect  to  the  Pepiry  thei'e  was,  moi'eover,  the  cir- 
cumstance that  this  I'iver  emptied  itself,  not  only  very 
neai"  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  but  also  at  the 
place  where  the  Uruguay,  coming  from  its  headwaters 
in  a  Westerly  direction,  bends  rapidly  to  the  South.  As, 
startingfrom  that  river,  the  divisional  line  went  towards 
the  Noi'th  seeking  the  course  of  the  Paraná,  the  choos- 
ing of  affluents  that  should  speedily  connect  the  two 
great  fluvial  boundaries  was  naturally  suggested. 
To  follow  beyond  the  Great  Falls  and  the  Pepiry, 
continuing  up  the  coui'se  of  the  Uruguay,  would  be 
to  change  the  direction  entirely  to  the  East,  as  the 
Argentines  now  wish  to  do,  and  therefore  to  turn  more 
and  more  away  from  the  objective,  which  was  the 
North  and  the  Paraná. 

Moreover,  in  an  official  Letter  dated  February 
8,  1749,  addressed  to  the  Ambassador  in  Madrid,  the 
Secretaiy  of  State  for  Foreign  Aifairs  of  Portugal, 
Marco  Antonio  de  Azeredo  Coutinho,  thus  explains, 
with  perfect  clearness  and  in  the  following  terms,  the 
proposal  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pecpiiry  as  a  boundary : 

"  If  there  be  any  scruple  regarding  the  name  of  the 
river  Pequiii,  along  which  the  Draft "  (the  project  of 
the  Treaty)  "  leads  the  boundary  to  reach  the  Iguaçu, 
it  may  be  said,  that  it  may  continue  along  the  i'iver 
which,  discharging  into  the  Uruguai,  shall  form  with 
the  cow'se  of  the  same  Uruguai  the  line  nearest  to  the 
North  direction,  and  that  from  the  headwaters  of  such 
river,  those  of  the  nearest  river  that  discharges  into  the 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  37 

Iguaçu  shall  be  sought,  and  that  along  it  the  boundary 
shall  run." ' 

In  the  Treaty  of  1750  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry, — since 
1760  Pepiry,  Pequiry,  or  Pepiry-Guaçú, — was  thus 
designated : 

Pepiri  or  Pequiri,  and  afterwards,  twice  Pepiri,  in 
Ai'ticle  V;  River  Pqyiri,  in  Article  XIV  ;  and  Pequiri 
in  XVI. 

In  Article  XIV  it  may  be  read  that  the  King  of  Spain 
"also  cedes  all  and  whatsoever  settlements 
and  establishments  may  have  been  founded         ,  ^  ^"^"J 

"^  .  was  already  the 

by  Spain  in  the  angle  of  land  included  be-  boundary  of 
tween  the  Northern  bank  of  the  River  Brazil  since 
Ibicui  and  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Uru-  century! 

guay,  and  such  as  may  have  been  founded 
on  the  Eastern  hank  of  the  River  PepirV 

And  in  Article  XVI :  "  Those  settlements  which 
are  ceded  by  Their  Most  Faithful  and  Catholic  Majes- 
ties on  the  banks  of  the  livers  Pequii'i,  Gruaporé,  and 
Amazonas,  shall  be  surrendered  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances as  Colónia  do  Sacramento,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  Article  XIV." 

Those  clauses  relating  to  the  settlements  that  might 
have  been  founded  by  Spain  on  the  Eastern  or  left 
bank  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry  were  written  as  a 
simple  precaution,  because  the  Jesuits  who  ruled  the 
Missions^  of  the  Uruguay  and  Paraná  with  complete 
independence  of  the  civil  authority,  formed  in  the 
dominion  of  the  King  of  Spain  a  true  imperium  in 
império,  and  could,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  two 

'  Document  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  at  Lisbon. 
^  In  Portuguese — Missões  (singular,  Missão) ;  in  Spanish — Misiones  (singular, 
Mision). 


3  8  BRA  ZII.IA  A'- A  RGEA'  TINE 

Courts,  have  recently  advanced  tlieir  possessions  in 
that  direction. 

But,  that  such  possible  occupation  of  the  Pepiry  had 
not  taken  place,  was  ascertained  by  the  Commissioners 
of  the  two  Crowns  who  went  to  make  the  demarcation 
in  1759  and  1760. 

When,  fui'ther  on,  the  teri-itory  now  contested,  its 
sjiecial  histoiy,  and  the  expeditions  of  the  Paulistas  or 
natives  of  S.  Paulo,  in  Brazil,  are  treated  of,  it  will  be 
proved  that  there  never  was  to  the  East  of  the  Pepiry 
any  settlement,  not  even  a  temporary  one,  of  the 
Spaniards  and  the  Jesuit  Missionaries,  and  that  after 
the  XVIIth  century  that  river  was  always  considered 
by  them  as  the  boundaiy  of  Brazil. 

To  enter  now  upon  these  matters  would  involve 
an  interruption  of  the  examination  of  the  Treaty 
of  1750  and  of  the  subsequent  demarcation.  It  is  suf- 
ficient to  say  hei'e  that,  as  early  as  1636,  it  was  in 
the  Campos  (Plains)  of  Ibituruua,  or  land  of  the 
Biturunas,  now  Campos  de  Palmas,  that  the  Paulistas 
concentrated  when  they  went  to  the  attack  of  the 
Missions  of  the  Uruguay  ;  that  there,  near  the  Pepiry, 
they  had  a  foi't  or  entrenched  camp;  that  even  in  the 
middle  of  the  XVIIIth  century,  the  Jesuits  of  the  ]\lis- 
sions  maintained  to  the  West  of  the  same  Pepiry,  on  the 
Yaboty  or  Pepiry-MimV  a  post  of  observation  called 
Espia,  to  give  notice  of  the  movements  of  the  Paulistas  ; 
that  from  1636  to  1638  these  Brazilians  destroyed  all 
the  settlements  which  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay  had 
just  formed  to  the  South  and  East  of  the  Uruguay ; 
and  that  only  in  1687  did  those  missionaries,  who  had 
concentrated  all  their  Guarany  Indians  in  the  mesopo- 

'  F  lo  in  Map  No.  29  A. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  39 

tamia  formed  by  the  (li-awiiis:  toiietber  of  tbe  courses 
of  the  Paraná  and  Uruguay,  venture  to  return  to  the 
left  bank  of  this  last  river,  laying  the  foundations  of 
seven  villages,  all  far  distant  from  the  Great  Falls  of 
the  Uruguay  and  the  Pepiry. 

In  1687  they  removed  to  the  West  bank  of  the 
Uruguay  the  missions  of  S.  Nicolas  and  S.  Miguel, 
placing  them  between  the  Ijuhy,  to  the  North,  and 
the  Piratiny,  to  the  South,  and  they  established  be- 
tween these  two  the  new  mission  of  S.  Luis  Gonzaga. 
Afterwards,  in  1(390,  they  founded  S.  Borja,  more  to 
the  South,  near  the  left  bank  of  the  Uruixuav  ;  in  the 
following  year,  S.  Lorenzo,  and  in  1698  S.  Juan  Bau- 
tista,  to  the  South  of  the  Ijuhy ;  lastly,  in  1 706,  S. 
Aujel,  the  most  advanced  on  the  Northern  side  of  the 
same  IJnhy. 

These  were  called  the  Seven  Eastern  Missions,  or 
"  Siete  Pueblos  Orientales  de  Misiones "  (Seven 
Oriental  Towns  of  the  Missions,  or,  as  the 
Portuguese  commonly  called  them,  "  Sete  ^^^  Seven 
Povos  de  Missões  )  between  the  Ibicuhy  Missions, 
and  the  Uruguay,  surrendered  by  Spain 
to  Portugal  in  exchange  for  the  fortified  city  of 
Colónia  do  Sacramento  and  its  territory.  The  seven 
oriental  missions  had  then  29,052  inhabitants,  and  the 
others,  between  the  Uruguay  and  the  Paraná  and  on 
the  right  bank  of  this  last  river,  66,833.  The  total 
population  subject  to  the  Jesuits,  and  composed  entire- 
ly of  Guarany  Indians,  was,  therefore,  95,885  inhabi- 
tants.    In  1755  it  rose  to  106,392. 

At  fii'st  Spain  showed  herself  «lisposed  to  surrender, 
in  exchange  foi'  Colónia  do  Sacramento,  all  the  terri- 
tory to  the  North  of  the  Rio  Negro,  an  affluent  of  the 


40  BKAZILIAN-AKGENTINE 

left  bank  uf  the  Uruguay.  Afterwards  she  thought  this 
concession  too  great,  and  offered,  in  place  of  it,  the  line 
of  the  Ibicuhy,  much  more  to  the  North. 

When  the  Spanish  counter-proposal   was    accepted 

by  Portugal  the  manuscri[)t  Ma[)  which  was  used  in 

the   final  discussions    between  the  Pleni- 

The  manuscript  potentiarics  had  been  completed,  and  for 

Map  of  1749.        ^  ,.    .   .  . 

that   reason    the    divisional   line  as   seen 
upon  it  is  represented  Jis  passing  along  the  Rio  Negro. 

This  manuscript  Map,  commonly  called  "Ma])[)a 
das  Cortes  "  ("  Map  issued  by  the  Courts  "),^  bears  the 
date  of  1749,  the  year  before  the  signing  of  the  Treaty., 
It  shows  not  only  the  boundaries  between  the  two 
Crowns,  but  also  the  territories  effectively  occupied  by 
each  Nation,  and  those  which  at  that  date  were  still 
unoccupied. 

The  best  Map  of  South  America  published  previ- 
ously was  that  of  d'Anville  (1748)  ;  but  it  lacked  the 
whole  course  of  the  Guaporé  along  which  the  fi'ontier 
ran  ;  the  Upper  Uruguay  was  represented  in  accordance 
with  informatiou  furnished  anterior  to  1733  by  the 
Jesuits  of  Pai'aguay,  who  Avere  not  acquainted  \\\\\\  it ; 
and  lakes  Mirim  and  dos  Patos,  with  the  adjacent  terri- 
tories, as  well  as  the  Southern  littoral,  from  Cape 
S'.^  Maria  to  S^^  Catharina,  were  represented  accord- 
ing to  a  sketch  hastily  made  in  1737  by  General 
Silva  Paes. 

The  manuscript  Map  of  1749  was  made  at  Lisbon, 
under  the  supervision  of  the  Portuguese  Government, 
by  a  Portuguese  engineer  or  geographer,  and  not  by 

'  It  began  to  be  so  called  from  the  demarcation  by  the  Portuguese  and 
Spanish  Commissioners.  The  former  wrote  "  Mappa  das  Cortes  "  ;  the  latter, 
"  Mapa  de  las  Cortes." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  4 1 

engineers  and  geogi"a[)bers  of  the  two  nations,  as  was 
w^ritten  many  years  afterwards.'  It  seems  that,  next  to 
the  part  taken  by  Alexandre  de  Gusmão  in  the 
prepai'ation  of  this  Map,  the  largest  part  was  performed 
by  General  Silva  Paes,  who,  about  that  time,  ar- 
rived from  Brazil  where  he  had  spent  fourteen  years, 
in  Rio  de  Janeiro,  S.  Catharina,  Rio  Grande  do  Sul, 


'  111  the  Memoria  del  Ministério  de  Relaciones  Exteriores  of  the  Argentine 
Republic,  presented  to  Congress  i-i  1892,  a  quotation  may  be  read  (p.  6)  which 
begins  as  follows  :  "  That,  in  fact,  the  said  map  had  been  drawn  by  engineers 
and  geographers,  and  by  skilled  and  well-informed  persons  of  both  na- 
tions .  .  .  ."  The  same  passage  is  transcribed  in  the  new  edition  of  that 
Memoria,  published  by  its  author,  Dr  EstamslAo  S.  Zekallos,  under  the  title 
— Ctiestiones  de  Limites  entre  las  Republicas  Argentina,  El  Brasil  y  Chile, 
Buenos- Aires,  1893,  in  12. 

Dr.  Zekallos  was  misinformed  when  he  wrote  (p.  6  of  the  Memoria  and  7 
of  the  Ctiestiones)  that  the  Plenipotentiaries  drew  up  that  "  document "  upon 
the  geographical  map  ("  a  geographical  map  upon  which  the  Plenipotentiaries 
drew  up  the  following  act  "),  and  when  he  gives  to  the  passage  quoted  the  name 
of  "  Protocol"  :" — in  the  Protocol  transcribed  in  the  preceding  Chapter"  (p. 
1 2  of  the  Report  and  1 5  of  the  Ctiestiones). 

The  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Zeballos  is  not,  as  he  supposes,  a  Protocol 
signed  in  1751,  but  a  translation  of  a  note  in  Vol.  III.,  p.  114,  of  the 
Collecção  de  Tratados  by  Borges  de  Castro.  The  note  is  simply  a 
copy  of  a  passage  in  the  Portuguese  Memorandum  of  2d  April,  ijj6,  de- 
livered on  that  date  (far  removed  from  1751)  by  the  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  the  Marquis  de  Pombal,  to  the  Portuguese  Ambassador  at 
London.  The  title  of  the  Memorandum  is  :  '"Analytical  and  Demonstrative 
Compendium  of  the  notorious  errors  of  fact  by  which  the  Governors  of  Buenos 
Ayres  have  attempted  to  excuse  at  the  Court  of  Madrid  the  violence,  liostilitics, 
and,  lastly,  the  war  which  General  D.  JOÃO  JOSEPH  DE  VerTIZ  declared 
against  the  Portuguese  Governors  of  Southern  Brazil  by  the  Manifesto  issued 
by  him  on  the ^Hi-  January,  1774." 

The  title  is  quoted  by  Borges  de  Castro,  and  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission 
possess  an  authentic  copy  of  this  document,  duly  legalized  by  Sr.  José  de 
Horta  Machado  da  Franca,  Assistant  Director  in  the  Portuguese  Foreign 
Office. 

As  to  the  error  of  the  Memorandum  in  attributing  the  Map  of  1749  to  Portu- 
guese and  Spanish  geographers,  when  this  Map  ^^  as  made  at  Lisbon  by  a  Por- 
tuguese geographer  according  to  documents  existing  there  and  others  sent  from 
Madrid,  it  cannot  cause  surprise  considering  that  Pombal  wrote  27  years  after 
this  fact,  and  was  not  at  Lisbon  in  1749  when  this  occurred. 


42  BRA  ZILIA  N-ARGEN  TINE 

and  Coloniii  ilu  Sacramento.  It  will  perhaps  never  be 
po«isil)le  to  settle  tbis  point,  because  in  the  great  earth- 
quake at  Lisbon  many  important  dijcumenta  were  lost, 
and  also  because  at  that  time  such  mattei-s  were  not 
always  entered  into  in  official  cori'espondence.' 

The  important  point  to  know  is  that  the  manuscript 
Map  of  17-19  is  a  Portuguese  Map,  made  in  duplicate 
and  on  the  8th  of  February  of  that  year  sent  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Azeredo  Coutin- 
ho, to  Madrid,  where  it  was  used  by  the  Plenipotentia- 
ries in  the  final  discussion  and  definitive  drawing  up  of 
the  Treaty."^ 

To  these  two  identical  i-eproductions  the  Plenipoten- 
tiaries gave  the  name  of  "  Mappas  Primitivos  "  (First 
Maps),  because  later,  in  1751,  three  copies  were  made 
at  Lisbon  and  the  same  number  at  Madrid  to  be  ex- 
changed and  given  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  dif- 
ferent Parties  charged  with  the  demarcation  of  the 
extensive  frontier  line. 

Map  Ko.  7  A  (Vol.  VL)  is  a  faithful  reproduction  of 
one  of  the  two  first  copies  of  the  Manuscript  Map  of 

The  original  ^  ''"^^^  ^"^^P^  ^"  ^^^^  Geographical  Depot  of 
of  the  Map  of  the  Freucli  Foreign  Office.  The  fac-simile 
1749  at    ans.  ^^^   »j.  ^^  -^  ^^^  same  in  size  and  coloring  as 

the  orií^inal.^ 


'  In  a  despatch  of  24th  June,  I75r,  the  Portuguese  Ambassador  does  not  state 
lhe  name  of  the  geographer  who  made  the  three  Spanish  copies  of  the  first  Map. 
Referring  to  this  geographer  he  says  :  "  the  man  wlio  made  them."  This  man, 
however,  must  have  had  a  certain  importance,  as,  farther  in  the  same  despatch, 
the  Ambassador  says  he  was  one  of  the  S])anish  Commissioners  appointed  to 
carry  out  the  demarcation  in  Northern  Brazil. 

■  Official  Letter  of  the  8th  February,  1749,  from  the  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  Marco  Antonio  de  Azeredo  Coutinho. 

■'  The  copy  presented  by  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  is  made  from  the 
original  numbered  2,582  in  the  Geographical  Depot  of  the  French  Foreign  Of- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  43 

The  geogi-apber  of  that  Dei)ai'tnient,  M.  E.  Des- 
BuissoNS,  certifies  that  this  copy  is  an  exact  copy 
of  the  "  oi'iginal  reproduction,"  and  on  the  back 
thei-e  is  the  following  declaration  under  No.  43,  written 
when  the  French  Government  acquired  this  Map: 
"  .  .  .  It  is  a  coi-rect  co[)y  of  the  original.  It  comes 
from  the  archiv^es  of  Lisbon." 

The  document  in  the  possession  of  the  French  For- 
eign Office  is  not  an  authenticated  reproduction  as 
these  two  notes  state,  but  one  of  the  two  originals  of 
1749,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  correspondence  of  the 
Portuguese  Ambassador,  Viscount  Thomaz  da  Silva 
Telles. 

The  following  letter  of  the  24th  June,  1751,  ad- 
dressed by  the  Am})assador  to  the  new  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Caevalho  e  Mello,  after- 
wards Marquis  de  Pombal,  speaks  of  the  three  copies 
which  came  from  Lisbon  that  year,  of  the  three  made 
at  Madrid,  and  of  the  diverç-ence  reg-ardiníí  the  frontier 
line  in  the  South,  represented  in  the  Lisbon  copies  by 
the  Rio  Negro,  as  in  the  two  first  Maps,  and  in  those 
of  Madrid  by  the  Ibicuhy,  as  had  been  agreed  ^ : 

"  As  the  Maps  which  D.  JozÉ  de  Cakvajal  had 
ordered   to   be  copied   from   the  first  that  came  from 

fice  and  is  signed  on  the  back  by  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  Portugal  and  Spain 
(date  I2th  July,  1751).  The  copy  is  authenticated  by  MM.  E.  Desbuissons, 
geographer  to  the  same  Department ;  Girard  de  Rialle,  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary, Director  of  the  Division  of  Archives  (date,  lith  Feb.,  1893)  ;  and 
Henry  Vignaud,  Secretary  of  the  Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America 
at  Paris  (date,  13th  February,  1893). 

'  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Alexandre  de  Gusmão  was  at  Madrid  only  as 
the  adviser  of  the  Embassy  to  discuss  the  question  of  limits.  When  this  was 
settled,  he  returned  to  Lisbon  where,  in  1751,  he  defended  the  Treaty  against 
the  attacks  of  General  Vasconcellos.  If  in  1751  GrsxiAo  had  been  at  Ma- 
drid, the  form  of  this  and  the  following  document  would  be  very  different. 


44  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

that  Court  (Lisbon)  before  the  Treaty  of  Limits  was 
made  were  at  Madrid,  and  as  there  was  a  delay  of 
some  days  in  the  coming  with  them  of  the  man  by 
who!ii  they  were  made,  and  aftei'wards  some  more 
days  were  spent  in  the  comparison  of  the  said  Maps 
with  the  three  Your  Excellency  sent  to  me  lately,  it  was 
not  until  now  that  a  diifei'ence  could  be  found  which, 
although  it  could  easily  have  been  corrected  by  a  decla- 
ration, I  do  not  venture  to  make  without  orders  and 
without  informing  Your  Excellency  of  the  said  decla- 
ration, so  that  if  the  King  oui-  Master  approves  it,  all 
the  geographical  Ma[)S  which  have  been  ordered  to  be 
made  by  either  side  and  are  necessary  for  the  execution 
of  the  said  Treaty  niay  be  signed. 

"  The  difference  consists  in  the  fact  that  in  the  first 
two  Maps  that  came  for  our  guidance,  one  which  D. 
José  de  Cakvajal  had  with  the  copy  of  the  Di-aft,  and 
another  which  I  hold  with  a  copy  of  the  same  Draft, 
a  red  line  is  drawn  which  beo-innino-  at  Castilhos  Grandes 
seeks  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  Negro,  and  proceeds 
along  it  to  the  Uruguay,  marking  and  touching  all  the 
points  of  the  demarcation.  But  undei"  the  Treaty,  the 
demarcation  does  not  follow  the  Rio  Negro,  but  from 
its  headwaters  it  proceeds  to  the  source  of  the  river 
Ibicui,  as  is  seen  in  Article  4  of  the  said  Treaty. 

"  In  the  three  copies  your  Excellency  sends  me  the 
original  was  followed  by  putting  in  the  red  line  as  it 
was  there,  without  I'egard  to  the  alteration  that  was 
made  in  the  Treaty. 

"In  the  three  copies  which  this  Minister  ordered  to 
be  made,  the  same  red  line  appears,  l:)ut  it  is  drawn  in 
conformity  with  the  alteration  tliat  has  been  made  in 
the  Treaty  with  i-egard  to  the  first  Map. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  45 

"In  order  to  show  what  I  mean  I  send  Your  Ex- 
cellency by  this  same  messenger  one  of  the  geographical 
Maps  which  Your  Excellency  sent  me,  and  another 
which  D.  JozE  DE  Caryajal  lent  me  in  order  that  I 
might  compare  it  at  greater  leisure  with  those  I  have 
in  my  possession 

"The  declarations  which  are  to  be  placed,  as  well 
on  the  first  Map,  as  on  the  copies  Your  Excellency  has 
now  sent  me,  Your  Excellency  will  see  on  the  enclosed 
paper,  which  has  already  been  compared  by  me  and 
b}^  D.  JozÉ  DE  Carvajal  ..." 

In  a  letter  of  the  12th  of  July  of  the  same  year  the 
Ambassador  said  : 

"  .  .  The  difficulty  which  occurred  was  that,  in 
the  exchange  of  the  said  Maps,  the  custom  which  pre- 
vails in  the  exchange  of  the  copies  of  any  Treaty  could 
not  be  followed.  Your  Excellency  knows  very  well  that 
they  are  always  Avrit ten  in  duplicate  on  each  side,  either 
in  its  own  language,  or  in  that  in  which  it  is  customary 
to  draw  up  such  documents,  and  that  although  all  on 
each  side  are  signed,  only  one  is  exchanged,  so  that  at 
the  Court  of  each  one  of  the  respective  Ministers  they 
may  be  preserved,  and  may  be  compared  and  collated 
at  any  time,  and  also  that  similarity  in  the  order  of 
signature  may  be  observed,  a  very  important  and  deli- 
cate point. 

"As  there  are  tliree  Maps  on  one  part  and  tlwee  on 
the  othe)%  this  rule  cannot  be  observed ;  to  this  diffi- 
culty another  and  more  delicate  one  was  added  which 
was  that  the  Portusruese  Commissioners  would  have  to 
take  the  Maps  made  in  Madrid,  and  the  Spanish  Com- 
missioners the  Maps  drawn  in  Lisbon,  and  in  connection 
with  this  I  considered  some  circumstances  on  our  side 


46  BRA  ZILIA  X-A  RGEN  TINE 

which  in  my  opinion  desei'ved  attention.  As,  how- 
ever, Your  Excellency  in  your  letter  makes  use  of  the 
following  words :  "  But  as  to  the  other  point  regard- 
ing the  signature,  that  which  has  been  previously  and 
is  now  still  understood  is  that  all  three  of  the  Ma[»s 
which  I  sent  to  your  Excellency  must  be  signed  and 
exchaufjed  in  authenticated  form  ;  this  Court  reniainiuir 
in  possession  of  the  Maps  which  your  Excellency  will 
receive  from  D.  Joseph  de  Carvajal,  and  D.  Joseph 
DE  Carvajal  of  those  he  will  receive  from  Your 
Excellency," — I  have  no  alternative  but  to  obey  and 
carry  out  the  orders  conveyed  to  me  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency. 

"  I  spoke  to  D.  Joseph  de  Carvajal  and  informed 
him  of  the  contents  of  the  letter  of  Your  Excellency ; 
and  he  agreed  to  everything,  yielding  with  regard  to 
the  doubt  that  had  occurred  to  him. 

"  We  accordingly  signed  first  the  two  original  Maps 
hy  lohicli  10 e  were  guided  in  drawing  up  the  Treaty  of 
the  demarcation  of  limits} 

"  In  both  I  had  the  declarations  of  Minute  A  written 

in  the  Portuguese  language^  and  I  signed  in  the  best 

place :  of  these  I  handed  one  to  D.  Joseph 

The  two  Maps  ^^  Carvajal,  to  be  kept  in  the  Archives 

of  1749.  ,  '  ^ 

of  Spain,  and  the  other  I  send  to  Your 
Excellency  that  you  might  order  it  to  be  placed  in 
suitable  keeping. 

"  We  immediately  signed  the  three  which  your  Ex- 
cellency lately  sent  to  me^  and  the  three  which  D. 
Joseph  de  Carvajal  had  ordered  to  he  drawn  /  ^  and 

•  That  is  the  Map  of  1749,  drawn  in  duplicate,  at  Lisbon. 
'  The  three  copies  made  at  Lisbon  in  1751  and  under  that  date. 
^  The  three  modified  copies  made  at  Madrid  in  1751,  and  bearing  the  date 
of  1749.  ' 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  47 

I  handed  him  mine  and  he  delivered  his  to 

me.     On,  those  which  I  gave  him,  1  ordered      tu^ueL  and 

Declaration  B  to  he  tvritten  in  the  Portu-  the  three  Span- 

guese  language,  and  I  signed  in  the  best      '^^  copies  of 

place.     On   those   which  he  gave   me   he 

ordered  Declaration   0  to  he  toritten  in  the  Spanish 

language,  and  these  he  signed  in  the  best  place. 

"  Of  these  I  send  Your  Excellency  two  and  keep  the 
third,  until  the  conclusion  and  drawing  up  of  the  In- 
structions which  are  to  be  taken  by  the  Commissioners 
who  are  to  proceed  to  the  North  of  South  America ; 
but  it  will  be  better  that  Your  Excellency  should  send 
me  a  newly  made  copy  which  I  can  use  and  keep  with 
the  original  Map  which  I  am  sending." 

This  was  "  Declaration  A "  written  on  the  two 
original  Maps/  according  to  the  quoted  despatch  of 
July  12,  1751: 

"  This  Geographical  Chart  which  is  to  remain  in  the 
Royal  Archives  of  Portugal,  as  well  as  the  other 
similar  Chart  which  is  to  remain  in  the      ^    . 

.  .       .  .    ,  Declaration 

Koyal  Archives  of  Spain,  is  that  which  was  written  on  the 
used  by  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  two  originals 
His  Most  Faithful  Majesty  for  the  drafting  °^  '^'^'' 

of  the  Treaty  on  the  division  of  Limits  in  South 
America,  signed  on  the  13th  of  January,  1750.  And 
because   in  the  said  Chart  there  is  a  red  line  which 

'  Title  and  reference  of  the  two  original  Maps  made  at  Lisbon  in  1749  : 
"  Mapa  dos  Confins  do  Brazil  com  as  ter-  /  ras  da  Coroa  de  EspA  na 
America  MERID'^^/ O  q"  está  de  Amarelo  he  o  q~  se  acha  occupado pelos  Portu- 
guezes.  /Oq~  estádeCordeRoza  heoq~  tem  occupado  os  Espanhoes./ O  q~  fica 
em  branco  não  está  até  o  prezente  occupado.  /  Feito  no  anno  de  1749." 
("  Map  of  the  Confines  of  Brazil  with  the  lands  of  the  Crown  of 
Spain  in  South  America.  What  is  yellow  is  occupied  by  the  Portuguese  ; 
pink  is  occupied  by  the  Spaniards.  The  space  left  in  white  is  not  yet  occupied. 
Done  in  the  year  1749.") 


48  BRAZIIJAN-ARGENTINE 

points  out  ;ui(l  passes  throii^li  the  places  where  the 
demarcation  is  to  be  made,  which  line,  being  anterior 
to  the  Treaty  of  Limits  ^^'hich  was  concluded  aftei- 
wards,  does  not  agree  with  it  in  passing  from  the  foot 
of  the  Hill  of  Castilhos  Grandes  to  the  headwaters  of 
the  River  Negro,  and  thence  down  the  lattei*  until  it 
enters  the  River  Uruguay,  whereas,  in  accordance  with 
the  said  Treaty,  it  should  run  to  tlie  princii)al  source 
of  the  River  Ibicui ;  it  is  hereby  declared  that  the 
said  line  shall  serve  only  so  far  as  it  is  in  conformity 
with  the  aforesaid  Treaty,  and  in  order  that  this  may 
remain  at  all  times  pi'oved,  We,  the  imdei'signed  Min- 
isters Plenipotentiary  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty 
and  of  His  Catholic  Majesty,  have  hereto  placed  our 
signatures  and  the  Seals  of  our  Arms.  Madrid,  the 
12th  of  July,  1751." 

In  the  thi-ee  copies  from  Lisbon,  made  in  1751,  was 
written  the  following  "Declaration  B"  appended  to 
the  same  despatch  of  the  Ambassador : 

"This  Geographical  Chai't  is  a  faithful  and  exact 

copy  of  the  first   u[)on   which  the  Treaty  of  Limits, 

siocned  on  the  18th  of  January,  1750,  was 

Declaration  »/  '  ' 

on  the  three  drafted  and  concluded.  And  because  in 
Portuguese  the  said  Chart  there  is  a  red  line  which 
copies  o    75  .  p^jjj^g  ^^^^^  ^^-^^  passes  through  the  places 

where  the  demarcation  is  to  be  made,  which  line,  being 
anterior  to  the  Treaty  of  Limits  which  was  concluded 
afterwards,  does  not  agree  \\\Ú\  it  in  passing  from  the 
foot  of  the  Hill  of  Castilhos  Grandes  to  the  headwaters 
of  the  River  Nes^ro,  and  thence  down  the  latter  until 
it  enters  the  River  Uruguay,  whereas,  in  accordance 
with  the  said  Treaty,  it  should  run  to  the  pi'incipal 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  49 

source  of  the  River  Ibicui ;  it  is  hereby  declared  that 
the  said  line  shall  serve  only  so  far  as  it  is  in  conform- 
ity with  the  aforesaid  Treaty,  and  in  order  that  this 
may  remain  at  all  times  proved,  We,  the  undersigned 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty 
and  of  His  Catholic  Majesty,  have  hereto  placed  our 
signatures  and  the  Seals  of  our  Arms.  Madrid,  the 
12th  day  of  July,  1751." 

Map  No.  9 A  (Vol.  VI.)  is  a  reduced  reproduction  of 
one  of  those  three  Portuguese  copies  of  1751,  in  the 
Archives  of  the  Department  of  State  at  Madrid.  It 
agrees  perfectly  with  Map  No.  7A.^ 

"  Declaration  C "  in  the  three  Spanish  copies  of 
1751  was  conceived  as  follows  : 

"  This  Geographical  Chart  is  a  faithful  and  exact 
copy  of  the  first  upon  which  the  Treaty  of  Limits, 
signed  on  the  l^Uh  of  January,  1750,  was 

1      P      1  All  •  Declaration 

drafted  and  concluded.  And  because  in  on  the  three 
the  said  Chart  there  is  a  red  line  which  Spanish  copies 
points  out  and  passes  through  the  places 
where  the  demarcation  is  to  be  made  ;  it  is  hereby  de- 
clared that  the  said  line  shall  serve  only  so  far  as  it  is 
in  conformity  with  the  aforesaid  Treaty,  and  in  order 

'  The  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  BraziHan  Special  Mission  is  a  photograph 
legalized  by  Sr.  Manuel  del  Palácio,  Director  of  the  Archives  and  Library 
in  the  Department  of  State,  Madrid.     Date  :  2d  March,  1893. 

The  title  and  reference  are  as  follows  : 

"  Mapa  dos  confins  do  Brazil  com  as  ter-  /  ras  da  Coroa  de  Esp>  na  America 
Meridionl  /  O  que  esta  de  cor  Amarela  he  o  que  se  acha  ocupado  pelos 
PortugV^  /  O  que  estcá  de  cor  de  Roza  he  o  que  tem  ocupado  os  Espanhoes.  /  O 
que  fica  em  Branco  está  athé  ao  presente  por  ocupar.  /  Feita  no  anno  de  1751." 
("  Map  of  the  Confines  of  Brazil  with  tlie  lands  of  the  Crown  of  Spain  in 
South  America.  What  is  yellow  is  occupied  by  the  Portuguese  ;  pink  is  occu- 
pied by  the  Spaniards.  The  space  left  in  white  is  not  yet  occupied.  Done  in 
the  year  1751." 


50  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

that  this  may  remaiu  at  all  times  proved,  We,  the 
Ministers  Plenijiotentiaiy  of  their  Catholic  and  Most 
Faitliful  Majesties,  have  signed  it  and  sealed  it  with 
the  Seal  of  our  Arms.  At  Madrid,  the  12th  of  July, 
1751." 

It  has  been  impossible  to  find  at  Lisbon  a  single  one 

of   the  three  Spanish    co[)ies  which  must 

^^J<.e^*"^^      be  lost    there    in    some  of   the  Archives, 

copies.  ' 

unless  they  have  been  mislaid,  as  happened 
with  one  of  the  two  original  Maps,  fortunately  pre- 
served since  1824  in  the  French  Foreign  Office. 

From  the  despatches  of  the  Portuguese  Ambassador 
above  quoted,  it  is  seen  that  the  Spanish  copies  differ 
from  those  made  at  Lisbon  and  from  the  two  original 
Majis,  inasmuch  as  they  show  the  corrected  boundary 
line  along  the  Ibicuhy,  as  it  was  finally  determined  in 
the  Treaty,  and  not  along  the  Rio  Negro,  as  in  the  first 
draft.  lu  the  Colleccão  de  Tratados  (Collection  of  Trea- 
ties) of  Borges  de  Castro  (Vol.  IIL,  1856),  there  is  a 
lithographed  reproduction  which  must  have  been  made 
from  one  of  the  three  Spanish  copies  delivered  in  1751 
to  the  Portuguese  Government,  or  from  a  copy  of  one 
of  them.  It  has  seemed  unnecessary  now  to  repro- 
duce that  copy  fully,  because  the  Department  of  State 
has  in  its  Library  the  compilation  of  Borges  de  Castro. 
Nevertheless,  in  Vol.  V.,  under  N°  IT^'  that  part  of 
the  Map  is  presented  which  may  be  of  use  in  the  study 
of  the  present  controversy.  In  the  same  Vol.  will  be 
found  under  N°  11,  of  the  size  of  the  original,  a  part  of 
another  contemporaneous  Spanish  Map,  which  nmch 
resembles  Borges  de  Castro's  copy,  and  was  drawn 
by  Palomares.  Under  Ne  ll'''"  the  latter,  which 
belongs    to    the    Department  of  State    at    Madi-id,    is 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  5 1 

presented  on  the  same  scale  as  the  first  Maps  collected 

in  Vol.  V/ 

The  trustworthiness  of  Viscount  Borges  de  Castko 
cannot  be  doubted.  Neither  he,  nor  the  Portuguese 
Government  which  published  the  Collecção  de  Tratado^., 
had,  in  1856,  any  interest  whatever  in  the  old  question 
which  was  revived  by  the  Argentine  Republic  onl}' 
in  1881 ;  nor  could  they  in  any  case  have  had 
recourse  to  the  sorry  and  ingenuous  expedient  of  tam- 
pering with  a  document  of  which  there  were  variouéi 
authentic  copies.  Moreover,  Borges  de  Castro  was 
merely  a  compiler  and  collector  of  Treaties  which  he 
published  without  commentaries  or  explanations.  When 
he  gave  this  Vol.  III.  to  the  press,  he  was  Secretary  of 

'  Of  this  Spanish  Map  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  has  a  traced  copy  of  the 
small  section  between  the  Uruguay,  the  Iguaçu,  and  the  Paraná.  It  is  legalized 
by  Sr.  Manuel  del  Palácio,  Director  of  the  Archive  and  Library  of  the  De- 
partment of  State  at  Madrid,  on  the  2d  of  December,  1893.  Besides  this  copy 
the  Special  Mission  has  another,  legalized  on  the  12th  of  December,  1842,  by 
the  Director  of  the  Archive,  Garaza,  and  by  Count  be  Almodovar,  Secretary 
of  State,  but  the  copyist  made  a  mistake  which  was  corrected  in  the  copy  now 
received. 

The  document  has  not  the  signatures  of  the  Plenipotentiaries.  This  is  the 
title  and  explanation  : 

' '  Mapa  /  de  los  Confines  del  Brasil  con  las  /  Tier r as  de  la  Corona  de  Espaiia  / 
en  la  America  Meridional.!  Lo  que  está  de  color  de  Rosa  es  lo  que  tienen  los 
Espatioles.j  Lo  de  Amarillo,  es  lo  ocupado  por  los  Portugueses.!  Lo  que  está 
de  color  Leonado  aun  no  está  ocupado.]  Palomares  dei'.  "  Translation  : — "  Map 
of  the  Confines  of  Brazil  with  the  lands  of  the  Crown  of  Spain  in  South 
America.  What  is  Pink  belongs  to  the  Spaniards.  Yellow  is  occupied  by  the 
Portuguese.     Brown  is  not  yet  occupied."     Palomares  deU  " 

The  Spanish  copy  which  Borges  ue  Castro  caused  to  be  reproduced,  and 
is  appended  to  Vol.  III.  of  his  Collection  of  Treaties,  has  this  title  and  ex- 
planation : — "  Mappa  (sic)  /  de  los  confines  del  Brasil  con  las  tierras  dela 
Corona  de  Espaiia  en  j  la  America  Meridional :  lo  que  est  d  de  amarillo  se  halla 
octipado  I  por  los  Portuguezes  ;  lo  que  está  de  color  de  rosa  tienen  ocupado  los  Es-/ 
paiioles  ;  lo  que  queda  en  bianco  no  estd  todavia  al prezente  (sic)  ocupado.  174c." 
Lithographed  at  the  National  Printing  House  at  Lisbon  by  J.  M.  C. 
Calheiros.  Translation  :— "  Map  of  the  Confines  of  Brazil,  with  the  lands 
of  the  Crown  of  Spain  in  South  America  :     What  is  Yellow  is  occupied  by  the 


5  2  BRA  ZÍI.  ÍA  N-A  RG  EN  Tl  NE 

Legation  at  Madrid,  and  probabl}'  liad  no  knowledge 
of  the  controversy  between  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
Commissioners  who  made  tlie  demarcation  under  tlie 
Ti'eaty  of  1777,  a  (juestiou  upon  which  notliing  liad 
been  said  since  the  end  of  the  last  ceutujy. 

In  177H  tlie  Mau(H'Is  de  Po.mbal  examined  and 
described  in  his  Memorandum  of  2d  A[»ril,  l)oth  the 
Portuf'uese  oriiriiial  <>i  1749,  which  was  at  Lisbon  and 
is  now  at  Pai-is,  and  one  of  tlie  three  Spanish  copies 
received  from  Madrid  in  1751.'  The  description 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  copy  of  Borges  de  Castro. 
It  is  sufficient  to  transcribe  this  passage :''... 
under  the  yellow  color  is  described  as  belonging  to 
Portugal,  that  is  to  say  :  By  the  sea-coast  and  adjacent 
land,  all  that  lies  to  the  North  and  West  from  Cas- 
tillos  Grandes  as  far  as  the  liio  Grande  de  S.  Pedro, 
fi'oin  which  forward  the  coast  of  Brazil  continues. 
And  ill  the  interior  of  the  country,  all  that  lies  from 

Portuguese  ;  Pink  by  the  Spaniards  ;  what  is  left  in  White  is  not  until  now 
occupied.      1749." 

At  the  top  is  to  be  read  the  following  title,  placed  there  by  Borges  dk 
Castro:  "  Carta  Geographica  /  de  que  se  serviu  o  Ministro  Plenipo- 
tenciário DE  S.  Magestade  Fidelíssima  para  ajustar  o  Tratado  de 
Limites  na  America  Meridional,  Assignado  em  13  de  Janeiro  de  1750./ 
(Tirada  de  copia  authentica.)"  Translation: — "Geographical  Map  used  by 
the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty  in  making  the 
Treaty  of  Limits  in  South  America,  signed  on  the  13th  of  January,  1750. 
(Taken  from  an  autlienticated  copy)." 

On  the  back  is  transcribed  Declaration  C,  in  S])anish,  signed  l)y  the  Pleni- 
potentiaries. 

Burges  de  Castro,  not  having  studied  the  negotiations  of  the  Treaties  he 
published,  was  mistaken  in  supposing  that  this  was  the  copy  used  by  the  Portu- 
guese Plenipotentiary.  The  document  he  caused  to  be  reproduced  is  one 
of  the  Spanish  copies  subsequent  to  the  Treaty,  and  not  the  original  Map  of 

1749- 

'  The  title  and  explanation  of  the  three  Spanish  copies  of  1751  were  drawn  u|i 
thus,  as  is  seen  in  ^  to  of  the  Portuguese  Memorandum  dated  the  2d  April,  1776, 
written  by  the  M.\rquis  dk  Pomiíal,  who  on  that  occasion  examined  them  : 

"  Ma1'A/í/cí  los  confines  del  Brasil  con  las  tierras  de  la  Corona  de  Espana  en 
la  America  Meridional.  /  l-o  que  está  de  Amarilio  es  lo  que  se  halla  ocupado  por 
los  Portugueses.  /  Lo  que  está  de  color  de  Rosa  es  lo  que  tienen  ocupado  los 
Espanoles.  /  Lo  que  (pieda  de  Blanco  no  está  todavia  ocupado.  /  En  el  aiio  de 
1749." 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  53 

the  first  red  line  on  the  North  .-is  far  as  the  rivers 
Pequiry  ^  and  Uriiguay-2)itá.^ " 

Indeed,  in  the  copy  of  Borges  i>j£  Castko,  and  in 
that  of  Palomares/  the  yellow  extends  as  far  as  the 
Uruguay-pita,  because  that  affluent  of  the  left  bank 
of  the  Uruguay  is  rej)resented  as  above  the  Great  Falls 
(Salto  Grande)  and  above  the  Pepiry,  while  in  the 
original  and  in  the  Portuguese  copies  it  is,  as  in  the  old 
maps  of  the  Jesuits,  below  those  Falls. 

It  seems  certain,  therefore,  that  the  three  Spanish 
copies  departed  from  the  Portuguese  original,  giving, 
as  in  Borges  de  Castro  and  Palomares,  the  names  of 
the  rivers  Nucorá,  S.  Juan,  and  Yriboba,  which  were 
not  in  the  original,  and  transferring  inoi-e  to  the  East 
the  Uruguay-Pita,  which  in  all  the  previous  maps 
appeared  to  the  East  of  the  former  Pepiry  of  the 
Jesuits.  It  is  not  possible  to  affirm  this  with  absolute 
security,  because  the  only  iiidispntable  proof  would 
be  the  production  of  one  of  the  Spanish  copies  with 
the  signatures  and  seals  of  the  Plenipotentiaries.  But 
these  considerations  will  serve  here  as  a  defence  of 
the  ever-honored  name  of  Borges  de  Castro,  against 
whom  the  accusation  has  been  recently  cast  of  having 
published  "  a  contemptible  document."  If  he  pub- 
lished that  copy  it  was  because  he  held  it  to  be 
authentic.  Moreover,  the  Map  of  Palo^iares,  pre- 
served in  the  Department  of  State  at  Madrid,  is 
theie  to  show  that  no  importance  whatever  was  at- 
tached at  that  time  to  the  position  of  the  affluents  of 

'  An  affluent  of  the  Paraná,  not  to  be  confounded  witli  the  Pepiry,  or  Pequiry, 
an  affluent  of  the  Uruguay. 

"^  An  affluent  of  tlie  left  bank  of  the  Uruguay. 

^  Map  of  Palomares,  N?  ii  and  N?  ii'j'^in  Vol.  V. ;  copy  of  Borges  de 
Castro,  N?   ii'^^'' in  the  same  Vol. 


54  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

the  left  bank  of  the  Ui'iiguay,  rivers  whose  courses  were 
imknowu  and  which  were  not  meutioued  in  the  Treaty. 

It  may  be  as  well  to  say  at  once  that  Brazil  does 
uot  need  the  Map  of  Bohges  de  Castko  in  order  to 
prove  her  right.  That  Map  is  a  Spanish  copy  whose 
author,  in  points  that  were  of  no  importance  in  the 
demarcation,  thought  fit  to  depart  from  the  Portu- 
guese original  AN'hich  was  given  him  to  copy. 

The  Map  used  for  the  final  discussion  of  the  Treaty 
of  1750  is  the  duplicate  Portuguese  INIap  made  in  1741). 
One  of  the  originals  was  lately  found,  and  is  now  pre- 
sented to  the  Arbitrator  in  a  perfectly  authenticated 
fac-simile. 

An  examination  of  this  Map,  which  will  be  made 
further  on,  will  show  that  the  River  Peipiiry,  or  Pepiiy, 
is  rejireseuted  in  it  as  tlie  first  ahove  the  Salto  Grande 
of  the  ZTnignaij,  and,  therefore,  is  the  same  river  that 
the  Brazilians  are  defending  as  a  boundary  of  tlie 
teriitory  now  disputed. 

V. 

On  the  17th  of  Januar\ ,  1751,  the  followino;  auree- 
ments  were  signed  at  Madrid  by  Viscount  THo:\rAs  da 
Silva  Telles,  the  Portu2:uese  Ambassador. 
and  by  the  Minister  of  State  Caiíva.tal  y      General  in- 
Lancaster,  the  Spanish  Plenipotentiar}' :     t^í  Demarca?- 

1st)  A  Treaty  of  Instructions  for  tlie  ingCommis- 
Commissioners  changed  with  the  demarca-     sioners,  17th 

.  •      .  Tan.    I7';i. 

tion  of  Limits  from  the   extreme  South  of 
Brazil  to  Matto-Grosso  ;  ^ 


'  "  Treaty  by  which  were  defined  the  Instructions  to  the  Commissioners  who 
are  to  proceed  to  South  America,  signed  at  Madrid  on  the  lyth  of  January  of  this 
present  year  /yji"  The  Portuguese  text  is  in  Vol.  IV.  of  this  Statement,  pp. 
25-42,  and  the  English  translation  in  Vol.  III.,  pp.  27-47. 

The  Portuguese  transcription  is  in  accordance  with  the  "  Chave  da  Demar^ 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  55 

2d)  Separate  Articles  of  this  Treaty,  relating  to 
tlie  possible  resistance  that  the  Indians  of  the  Jesuit 
Missions  in  Uruguay  might  offer  to  the  execution  of 
the  Treaty  of  Limits  ^ ; 

3d)  A  Protocol  or  Declaration,  which  was  styled 
Treaty,  extending  for  one  year  the  period  for  the 
surrender  of  the  territories  ceded  ~ ; 

4th)  Another  Protocol  which  was  also  styled 
Treaty,  warning  the  Demarcating  Commissioners 
against  the  possible  inaccuracies  of  the  Map  used  in 
the  discussion  and  agreement  regarding  the  question 
of  Limits.^ 

Afterwards,  on  the  17th  of  April,  the  same  Pleni- 
potentiaries signed  a  "  Supplement  and  Declara- 
tion "  to  the  Treaty  i)f  Instructions  to  the  Deraarcators.^ 
The  new  agreement  modified  and  explained  some  of 
the  Articles  of  the  Instructions. 

Of  these  five  documents,  only  the  first  and  the  Pro- 
tocol relating  to  the  Map  of  1749  can  be  of  use  in  the 
examination  of  the  present  case.  Nevertheless,  all  five 
accompany  this  Statement,  transcribed  in  full  from 
authenticated  copies,  and  translated  into  English,  with 
the  sole  and  important  object  of  showing  that  in  these 
Instructions  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Pepiry 
nor  to  the    Uruguaij-Pitã^  as  was  asserted  afterwards 


cação  "  a  collection  of  official  authenticated  copies  of  the  last  centun',  now 
in  the  keeping  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  at  Washington.  The  same 
Mission  has  also  a  copy  of  the  Spanish  original,  legalized  on  the  loth  of  Octo- 
ber, 1893,  by  the  Director  of  the  General  Archives  of  Simancas,  and  on  the  I2th 
of  the  same  month  by  the  Secretary  of  the  American  Legation  at  Madrid. 
'  The  Portuguese  text,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  47-49  ;  English  translation,  Vol.  III., 

pp.  52-54- 

*  Portuguese  text,  IV.,  50  ;  English  translation.  III.,  55. 

^  English  translation.  Vol.  III.,  57  ;  Portuguese  text,  IV.,  53. 

*  English  translation,  III.,  48  ;   Portuguese  text,  IV.,  43. 


56  BRAZIL!  A  N-AKGEN  TINE 

by  the  Spanish  Commissiouers  of  the  siii'vey  made 
iiiuler  the  Treaty  of  1777,  and  as  has  been  affirmed  by 
the  supporters  of  the  Argentine  pretension. 

The  Instructions  only  gav^e  explanations  regarding 
the  Igurey/  an  affluent  of  the  Paraná,  and  the  Cor- 
rientes,'  a  tril)utary  of  the  Paraguay,  the  two  Govern- 
ments thus  showing  that  they  were  not  well  assured  as 
to  the  true  situation  of  these  two  rivers  designated  to 
serve  as  boundaries. 

Neither  in  the  Secret  Instruction  given  to  the  Prin- 
cipal Spanish  Commissioner  is  there  anything  concerning 
the  Pepiry  or  the  Uruguay-Pita. 

Two  Articles  of  the  General  Instructions  of  January 
17,  1751,  deserve  special  attention. 

The  First  lays  down  the  foUoxving  rule  which  the 
Principal  Commissioners  were  to  impress  upon  their 
subordinates : 

"Article  31:  That  the  Commissioners  shall  avoid 
contentions  regarding  the  demarcation,  especially 
^       .    .        on  matters  of  little  importance,  and  that 

Commission-  i  ' 

ers  shall  avoid  they  sliould  rather  settle  at  once  among 
contentions,  tliemsclves  any  differences  that  may  arise, 
because  it  is  not  the  intention  of  Their  Majesties  that 
any  i)art  of  the  work  shall  be  left  incomplete  \\Hithout 
very  weighty  reasons  nor  shall  the  Commissioners  take 
into  consideration  any  small  ^portion  of  territory,  pro- 
vided the  Line  is  located  hy  the  most  visible  and  lasting 
natural  Boundaries.  But  whenever  they  may  be 
absolutely  unable  to  agree,  on  account  of  the  great  im- 
portance of  the  matter  in  controversy,  separate  Maps 

'  Articles  X.  and  XI.  (Portuguese  text,  Vol.  IV.,  31  ;  English  translation, 

III..  34). 

''  Article  XII.  (Portuguese,  Vol.  IV.,  32  ;  translation,  III.,   34)- 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  57 

shall  be  constructed  of  the  point  contested,  which  shall 
be  accompanied  by  documents  signed  by  the  Commis- 
sioners, Astronomers,  and  Geographers  of  both  parties, 
in  which  they  shall  explain  the  reasons  for  their  diver- 
gence of  opinion,  and  which  shall  be  remitted  to  the 
two  Courts  for  the  amicable  settlement  of  the  question. 
And,  notwithstanding  this,  the  Party  shall  proceed 
with  the  demarcation  of  the  remaining  portion  of  the 
Bouudar}-." ' 

In  Article  37  there  is  this  final  declaration : 
"  It  is  hereby  declared  that  if  the  aforesaid  Commis- 
sioners find  any  difficulty  in  any  of  the  points  of  this 

Instruction,  or  if  they  discover  a  manner  of    .      , 

'  J^  Ample  power 

carrying  them  out  with  greater  facility,  or  to  the  Com- 
if  they  find  any  inconvenience  in  the  execu-  missioners. 
tion  of  any  one  or  more  of  them,  in  all  and  in  each  of 
these  cases  they  shall  decide  on  and  carry  out  wliat  may 
seem,  to  them  to  he  best,  provided  they  attain  the  princi- 
pal object,  which  is  the  execution  of  the  Treaty  with 
sincerity  and  good  faith,  without  forced  interpretation, 
nor  excuse,  and  in  a  manner  becoming  to  the  service  of 
Their  Majesties."  ^ 

The  Protocol  or  Declaration,  to  which  was  given  the 
name  of  a  "  Treaty  on  the  Interpretation  of  the  Geo- 
graphical Maps  which  are  to  guide  the  Declaration 
Commissioners  who  are   to  demarcate  the  ''^'fj^'"^  \°  *^^ 

Map  of  1749 

Boundaries  of  Brazil,^''  is,  as  has  been  of  the  Pieni- 
said  already,  a  document  of  great  value  in  potentiaries. 
the  study  of  this  question. 

It  says : 

"  We  the  undersigned  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of 

'  Portuguese  text  in  Vol.  IV.,  p.  39  ;  English  translation,  III.,  43. 
2  Vol.  III.,  46:  IV.,  42. 


58  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Their  Most  Faithful  and  Catholic  Majesties,  by  virtue 
of  the  Full  Powers  which  we  have  coininuiiicated  to 
each  other,  and  recognized  to  our  reciprocal  satisfaction : 
J>tc1are  that  whereas  we  have  been  governed  by  a  manu- 
script geographical  Map  in  drawing  up  this.  Treaty  and 
the  Instructions  for  its  execution  ;  for  this  reason  a  copy 
of  the  said  Map  is  to  be  sufplied  to  each  Party  of  Coin- 
fuissiouers  of  each  Sovereign,  for  their  guidance,  all 
signed  by  us,  inasmuch  as  by  it,  and  in  accordance  with 
it,  all  the  expressions  are  explained.  We  lihewise  declare 
that  although  according  to  the  information  of  both 
Courts  we  hold  all  things  noted  in  the  said  Map  as  very 
probable;  admitting  also  that  some  of  the  territories 
demarcated  have  not  been  visited  by  persons  now  living, 
and  that  others  have  been  tahenfrom  the  Maps  of  trust- 
worthy p)er  sons  loho  have  travelled  through  them,  though, 
perhaps,  loith  little  skill  to  represent  them  by  sketch,  on 
which  account  there  may  be  some  notable  variations 
upon  the  ground,  both  in  the  situations  of  mountains, 
and  in  the  oricjins  and  courses  of  rivers,  and  even  in  the 
names  of  some  of  them,  because  it  is  customary  for  each 
Nation  in  America  to  give  them  different  names,  or  for 
other  reasons :  It  is  the  Will  of  the  Contracting  Sov- 
ereigns, and  they  Itave  agreed,  that  any  variation  there 
may  he  shall  not  stay  the  course  of  the  execution,  but  that 
it  shall  proceed  as,  in  accoi'dance  with  the  Treaty,  the 
mind  and  intention  of  Their  Majesties  is  manifested 
in  the  whole  of  it,  and  more  particularly  in  Ai'ticles 
VIL,  IX.,  XL,  and  XXIL,  according  to  which  the 
whole  shall  be  punctually  executed.  And  We,  the  said 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary,  so  declare  it,  in  the  names 
of  our  Sovereigns  and  by  virtue  of  their  Ordei-s  and 
Full  Powers,  and  sign  it.     This  declaration  shall  be 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  59 

ratified  within  the  same  time  aud  period  as  that  of  the 
Extension  of  the  Term,  and  the  Instrnctions,  and  a 
coj^y  of  it  shall  be  given  to  the  Commissioners  of  both 
Sovereigns.  Done  at  Madrid,  on  the  seventeenth  of 
January  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty-one.'' 

In  1751  the  Commissioners  charged  with  the  demar- 
cation by  the  two  Governments  were  appointed.     The 
long  boundary  line  was  divided  into  two 
parts ;    the   Southern  part,  from  Castillos    "^^f  ^o^i^- 
Grandes  to   the  Jaurii   and  the  Northern  sioners. 

from    this    river    to     the    North     of    the 
Equator. 

The  two  Joint  Commissions  were  subdivided  into 
Sections  or  Parties  and  to  each  one  of  these  a  section 
of  the  boundary  line  was  allotted.  The  South  Com- 
mission thus  formed  three  Parties  according  to  the 
provision  of  the  following  Article  of  the  General  In- 
structions : 

"Article  9. — The  Fivst  Partt/  shall  survey  from 
Castilhos  Grandes  to  the  entrance  of  the  River  Ibicuy' 
into  the  Uruguay,  as  provided  in  Art.  IV.  of  the 
Treaty.  To  the  Second  Party  are  allotted  the  Borders 
which  run  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ibicuy  to  the  point 
which  on  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Paraná  lies  in  front 
of  the  mouth  of  the  River  Igurei,  in  accordance  with 
Art.  V.  And  to  the  Third  Party,  the  remaining 
borders  from  the  mouth  of  the  Igurei  to  the  River 
Jauru,  as  laid  down  by  Art.  VI." 

It  therefore  fell  to  the  share  of  the  Second  Party, 
or  Subdivision,  to  make  the  survey  and  demarcation 
between  the  Uruguay  and  Iguaçu,  and,  thus,  its  work 
is  the  only  one  that  need  be  examined. 

'  Also  written  Ibiciihy. 


6o  BKA/.ILIAN-AKGEN'JINE. 

The  Portuguese  Government  appointed  as  Principal 
or  First  Commissioner  in  tlie  South  Division,  General 
Gomes  Fkeike  de  Andrada,  afterwards  Count  de. 
BoBADELLA,  and  the  Spanish  Government  the  Marquis 
DE  Val  de  Lírios. 
^       .  .  Meanwhile,    o-reat     opposition     to    the 

Opposition  to  .      .  . 

the  Treaty  in    Treaty  of  Limits  had  arisen. 

Spain  and  Xhe  Jesuits  of  Pai'aiiuav  addressed  rep- 

Portugal.  ^    ,.  ,  ,         T^-  /.    O,        •  T     , 

resentations  to  the  Ivnig  oi  Spain  ana  to 

the  Viceroy  of  Peru  complaining  of  the  cession  of  the 

Sev^en  Missions  to  the  East  of  the  Uniiiunv, 

The  Jesuits.  ...  ,^.  .       ^' 

and  petitioning  the  King  to  reconsider  his 
action.  These  documents,  as  is  known  to-day,  were 
drawn  up  by  Father  Pedro  Lozano.  In  the  Spanish 
Archives  other  representations  are  to  be  found,  from 
Fathers  Joseph  QuiiiOGA,  Luiz  x\ltamirano,  and  Carlos 
Gervasoni,  from  the  Bishop  of  Tuciiman  and  from  the 
Governors  of  this  province  and  of  that  of  Paraguay. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Jesuits  in  Portugal,  fulfilling 
the  orders  received  from  the  General  Prefect  in  Pome, 
used  all  their  iniiuence  at  the  Court  of  Lisbon  to  obtain 
from  D.  José  L,  who  on  the  31st  of  July,  1750,  had 
succeeded  D.  Joao  V,  the  annulment  of  the  Treaty  of 
Limits. 

The  Portuguese  and  English  merchants  interested  in 
the  trade  of  Colónia  do  Sacramento  also  raised  a  great 
^^  ^    ,     Ç     outcry    asfainst     the    surrender     of     that 

The    1  reaty  of  J  <D 

1750  attacked  in    pQi't    aud    citv    to     the    Spaniards,    and 

Portugal.  ^  -^  111. 

(jreneral  V  asconcellos,  who  had  victori- 
ously defended  the  same  stronghold  during  the  siege 
from  173Õ  to  1737,  attempted  to  prove  in  a  Report, 
that  the  Treaty  was  very  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of 
Portugal  and  endanííered  the  security  of  its  Dominions 
in  America. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  6 1 

It  Wiis  under  these  evil  auspices,  public  opinion  in 

tlie    two  Countries  beinii;  irritated  against 

the  Treaty,  that  it  was  endeavored  to  be<dn  The  demarca- 
■ .  ~  tion  begins. 

Its  execution  by  can'\  iiiiji;  out  the  suri'ender 

of  the  ceded  teri'itories  and  tlie  sui'vey  and  demarcation 

of  the  frontiers. 

The  Coumiissioiiei'S  proceeded  slowly  with  their 
work  from  Castillos  Grandes  as  far  as  Santa  Thecla  on 
the  head  watei's  of  the  Rio  NeLjro  and   of 

1        Ti  •       1  TT       •  111-  •         Insurrection  of 

the  Ibicuhy.  Having  reached  this  point,  the  Guaranys 
they  Were  obli^ed  to  go  back  because  a  of  the  Jesuit 
1       i  i-    i^  xt    \\        H/T-     •  Missions. 

body  ot  (jruaranys  ot  the  Missions  came 
out  (1754),  summoning  them  to  retreat  and  de- 
claring that  '"'•  there  was  no  right  to  take  from 
the  Guaranys  those  lauds  which  God  and  Saint  ]\Iichael 
had  given  them."  Shortly  afterwards  other  Guai'anys 
attacked  the  Portuguese  Fort  of  Rio  Pardo. 

From  the  XVIIth  century  tlie  Jesuits  had  armed  their 
Indians  and  brought  them  under  military  discipline  in 
order  to  resist  the  attacks  of  the  Paulistas.  At  that 
moment,  and  at  the  summit  of  their  powei",  they  con- 
ceived that  they  could  oppose  with  advantage  the  de- 
cisions of  the  two  Crowns  of  Portugal  and  Sj)ain.  As 
early  as  1748  the  Superior  of  the  Missions,  in  an  arrogant 
letter,  said:  "  Exterorum  acies  non  timemus.  Nihil 
foris  contubare  nos  potest." 

All  means  of    })ersnasion   having  l)een  exhausted,  a 
small    army,   formed   with   some  troops  of 
Brazil   and    Buenos-Aires    under  the   com-  ^^^  °^ 

Misiones. 

mand  of   Generals  Gomes  Fkeike  de  Ax- 
DKADA  and  Joseph   Andoxaegui,  marched  against  the 
Uruguay    Missions.     On   the   10th  of  February,  1756, 
the  Guaranys  were   completely  beaten   in         Battle  of 
the    Battle  of  Caá-ibaté,  near  the    sources       Caá-ibaté. 


62  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

of  tbe  Oaceqii},  and  the  allied  troops  were  able, 
almost  without  resistance,  to  occupy  the  Oriental 
Missions. 

These   events    delayed    the    Demarcators,  and    the 
Second    Party    was    unable    to    begin    its   labors    till 

The  Joint  1*09. 

Commission  It  was  coHiposed,  on  the  part  of  Portu- 

which  made  j     ^s^   ^j^^    Colonel    of  Enmuecrs  (after- 

the  Demarca-    »     '  s  \ 

tion  in  1759-  wards  General)  Joseph  Fernandes  Pinto 
1760.  Alpoy.ai,  First  Commissioner ;  Captain  An- 

tonio DA  Veiga  d'  Andrada,  Second  Commissioner  and 
Astronomer  ;  Ensign  Manoel  Pacheco  de  Ciiristo, 
Geographer  ;  and  one  hundred  and  nine  men  more. 
On  the  part  of  Spain,  of  D.  Francisco  de  Arguedas, 
of  the  King's  Council;  1st  Lieutenant  of  the  Royal 
Navy  (afterwards  Rear  Admiral),  D.  Francisco 
MiLLAU  y  Maraval,  2d  Commissioner  and  Geo- 
grapher ;  1st  Lieutenant,  also  of  the  Navy,  D.  Juan 
Norberto  Marron,  Astronomer ;  and  one  hundred 
and  eleven  men. 

The    Brazilian    Special   Mission    can     produce    the 
original  Diary  ^  written  and  signed  by  the  three  Portu- 


'"  DIARIO/ DA /segunda  PARTIDA  DA  /  DEUIZAO  D  A  AmERIC  A  / /<?iVrt  /^/<7 
Coronel  da  Artelharia  I  ]ozv.  Fernandes  Pinto/ Alpuym."  {"'Diary  of  the 
second  Party  of  the  division  of  America  made  by  Colonel  of  Artillery,  fozé 
Fernandes  Pinto  Alpuym")  This  Commissioner  always  signed — Joseph  Fer- 
nandes Pinto  Alpoym,  and  not  Alpuym. 

The  original  Manuscript  belongs  to  the  Brazilian  Foreign  Office  and  was 
never  published.  The  publication  in  Vol.  VII.  of  the  Collecção  de  Noticias  para 
a  Historia  e  Geographia  das  N^ações  Ultramarinas,  Lisbon,  1841  C Collection  of 
Materials  for  the  History  and  Geography  of  Nations  beyond  the  Seas  J,  is  a 
translation  of  the  Spanish  Diary,  with  not  very  felicitous  inversions  because  the 
translator  aimed  at  re-constructing  the  original  Portuguese  text,  which  was  im- 
possible, and  he  was  careless  in  his  attempt  to  apply  the  diplomatic  rule  of  the 
alternat. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  63 

guese  Commissioners  and  an  authenticated  Diary, 

copy  of  the  Spanish  Diary} 

The  defenders  of  the  Argentine  pretension  have 
constantly  said  that  in  the  Instructions  given  to  the 
Commissioners  the  River  Pepiry  was  dis-  An  invention 
tinguished  by  these  features  :  °^  ^7^^' 

"  A  full-flowing  river,  with  a  bushy  island  opposite 
its  mouth,  a  large  reef  within  its  bar,  and  that  thelatter 
is  upstream  fro77i  the  Uruguay -Pita.'''' 

The  Memorandum  of  the  30th  of  January,  1883,  of 
De.  Victorino  de  la  Plaza,  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs  for  the  Argentine  Republic,  repeating  an  in- 
vention of  the  13th  of  November,  1789,  had  said  : 

"  The  Manuscript  Map  expressly  made  by  order  of 
the  Courts  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  the  Treaty,  located 
the  River  Pepiri  or  Pequiri  higher  up  the  Uruguay- 
Pita  or  to  the  East  of  its  mouth,  and  it  is  known  that 
the  said  Pepiri  or  Pequiri  was  a  full-flowing  river  with 
a  wooded  island  in  front  of  its  mouth  and  a  large  reef 
opposite  its  bar." 

In  the  Report  presented  in  1892  to  the  Argentine 
Congress,  Minister  De.  Zeballos,  relying  on  inaccurate 
information,  wrote  as  follows  : 

1  "  DiARio  /  hecko  I  DEORDEN  DE  Sus  M.  M.  /  C.  Y  F.  /  qMC conipreJiende  la  De- 
marcacion  de  j  la  Linea  de  division  I  desde  j  la  boca  del  Rio  Ibicuy  siguiendo, 
por  I  LOS  Rios  Uruguay,  Pequiry,  San  Antonio,  Iguazú  y  /  Paraná 
hasta  el  Salto  Grande  de  este.  Ejecutada  j  por  j  las  segundas  Partidas.  /  ASo 
DE  1759."  {''Diary  made  by  order  of  Their  Catholic  and  Most  Faithful 
Majesties  which  includes  the  Demarcation  of  the  Line  of  Division  from  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Ibicuy  following  along  the  rivers  Uruguay,  Pequiry,  San 
A7itonio,  Iguazú,  and  Paraná  as  far  as  the  Great  Fall  of  the  last.  Executed  b'y 
the  Second  Parties,   Year  iy_$ç."  ) 

The  original  is  presented  in  lhe  Department  of  State,  at  Madrid,  and  the  copy 
in  the  possession  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  is  authenticated  by  the  Director 
of  the  Archive  and  Library  of  that  Department  (2d  June,  1893),  and  by  the 
American  Vice-Consul  at  Madrid  (3d  June,  1893). 


64  BK  A '/.I  LI  AX-ARGENTINE 

•'The  Instructions  given  to  the  demiircatoi's  charged 
to  trace  the  lines  agreed  upon,  described  the  river 
Pe<|uiri  in  these  terms : 

"  A  full-flowing  river  with  a  wooded  island  opposite 
its  UKmtli,  a  hii'ge  reef  fronting  its  mouth,  which  mouth 
is  upstream  of  tlie  T^i-uguay-Pita,  a  Southei'u  affluent 
of  the  Uruguay/' ' 

On  the  18th  of  Novembei-,  1789  (thirty  years  after 
the  first  survey  of  the  Pepiiy),  the  Spanish  Commis- 
sioner Alvear  said  in  an  official  lettei'  ad- 
rans  or     -    ^|j.^gggj  ^,^  |^jg  Portuffuese  associate,  Roscio, 

tions  through  o  '  ' 

which  the  in-    that  the  Ma[)  of   1749   located   the  Pepiry 
veniionof         ^X^y^  the  Uru<may-Pitá  and  that  in   178<S 

1789  passed.  .  .  •  i 

this  Pepiry  had  been  found  "  with  the 
features  that  characterize  it,  of  being  full-jUjwing^  mid 
of  having  a  wooded  island  opposite  its  inoutli^  and  a 
large  reef  toithin  its  mouths  ^ 

Al"\t:aií  did  not  speak  of  Instructions ;  he  limited  him- 
self to  applying  to  the  old  Pe[)iry  of  the  treaty  of  1750 
the  features  characteristic  of  the  river  discovered  in 
1788,  artfully  insinuating  that  in  1759  the  Pepiry  was 
known  by  those  features. 

This  invention  was  sufficient,  however,  to  lead  two 
other  Spanish  Commissioners,  Jurado  and  Requena,  to 

'  Memoria  del  Ministério  de  Relaciones  Exteriores  presentada  ai  Congresso 
Nacional  por  el  Dr.  Estanislao  S.  Zeballos,  Buenos-Aires,  1892,  pag.  6  ;  e 
Zeballos,  Cttestiones  de  Limites,  Buenos-Aires,  1893,  pag.  7.  (Report  of  the 
Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  presented  to  the  National  Congress  by  Dr. 
Zeballos,  1892,  p.  6;  and  Zeballos,  Questions  of  Limits,  1893,  p.  7.) 

-  "  Dentro  de  su  barra  "  (within  its  mouth),  according  to  the  authenticated 
copy  in  the  possession  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission,  of  the  official  letter  of 
13th  November,  1789,  of  Diego  de  Alvear,  and  not — "  Frente  de  su  barra," 
(in  front  of  its  mouth)  as  Cabrer  wrote,  when  copying  this  letter  into  his  Diary. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  6$ 

say  what  follows  in  their  Historical  Keport  of  the  De- 
marcation of  Limits,  elated  1800: 

"  The  features  by  which  in  the  said  Instruction  and 
the  Map  following  it,  drawn  by  mutual  agreement,  the 
Pepiri-Guazu  was  described,  were  :  a  full  flowing  river 
with  a  wooded  island  in  front  of  its  mouth  :  a  laro^e 
reef  in  front  of  its  mouth  ;  and  tliat  this  mouth  is  up- 
stream of  the  Uruguay-pita." 

Another  Spanish  Report,  written  in  1805,  inspiring 
itself  from  the  invention  of  1789,  and  on  the  addition 
of  ]  800,  said  : 

"  A  full  flowing  river  with  a  wooded  island  opposite 
its  mouth,  a  reef  ^vithiu  its  mouth,  and  situated  up- 
stream of  the  Uruguay-puitá." 

Subsequently  Oyárvide  in  a  Report  written  at  the 
beginning  of  this  century,  and  Cabiíer  in  another  fin- 
ished at  Buenos- Aires  in  the  year  1835,  reproduced  the 
invention  of  Alvear  but  they  did  not  venture  to  rej^eat 
the  supposed  passage  of  the  Instructions  of  1751  and 
1758  composed  in  1800  and  1805. 

The  Report  of  1892  of  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  adopting  a  sup- 
posed quotation  by  one  of  the  numerous  writers 
who  have  discussed  this  question  in  the  Press, 
gives  a  diifei-ent  wording  from  the  two  of  1800 
and  1805  :  and  it  is  thus  that  the  invention  of 
1789,  passinoj  throuo-h  successive  additions 

^  J.  .  ,  ,  Its  final  form. 

and  ti'ansiormations,  reaches  the  presence 

of  the  Arbitrator  in  the  final  form  in  which  it  is  about 

to  be  destroyed. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  in  the  General  In- 
structions (Treaty  of  the  17th  January,  1751)  there  is  no 


66  BNAZILIAN-ARGENTINE. 

The  invention  reference  whatever  to  the  Pepiry  or  the 
of  1789  de-        Uruiruay-Pitfi.    It  is  now  necessary  to  show 

stroyed  by  two  .  .  . 

authentic  that  in  the  Special  Instructions  of  27th 
documents.  July,  1758,  given  to  this  Second  Party,  the 
passage  which  has  been  quoted  does  not  occur. 

The  Argentine  Government  has  doubtless  acted  in 
good  faith  in  re[>eating  what  is  stated  in  the  reports  of 
certain  Spanish  functionaries  written  at  the  end  of  the 
last  century  and  the  beginning  of  this,  with  the  oljject 
of  complicating  this  (piestion  of  Limits,  in  itself  so 
simple. 

AVhen  the  invention  of  the  passage  attributed  to  the 
Instructions  is  established,  and  when  it  is  proved,  as  it 
will  be  proved,  tliat  the  Penury  or  Pequiry  of  the  Map 
of  1749  and  of  the  Treaty  of  1750  is  the  same  i-iver 
that  was  demarcated  in  1759,  the  entire  basis  will  be 
removed  from  the  argument  of  the  Spanish  Commis- 
sioners who,  after  1789,  pi'etended  to  correct  supposed 
errors  of  their  pi-edecessors,  and  to  modify  the  divisional 
Line  defined  by  the  Ti-eaty  of  1777,  which  accepted 
and  confirmed  the  first  demarcation. 

The  Special  Instruction  of  L^7th  July,  1758,  was  only 
known  by  some  quotations  met  with  in  the  Diary  of 
the  Demarcation  of  1759  and  1760.  Now,  in  this  last 
and  supreme  trial  of  the  suit  initiated  more  than  a 
century  ago,  and  lately  revived,  it  appears  for  the  first 
time  to  make  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice  ti'iumphant, 
and  to  vindicate  the  memory  of  the  Portuguese  and 
Spanish  demarcators  of  1759. 

The  Spanish  text  of  the  Special  Instruction  has  re- 
cently been  found  in  the  General  Archives  of  Simancas, 
appended  to  the  autograph  letter  of  Marquis  de  Val 
DE  Lírios,  written  from  S.  Nicolas  de  Misiones,  on  the 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  6/ 

20th  of  February,  1760,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  D. 
Ricardo  Wall,  and  is  transcribed  and  translated 
among  the  documents  appended  to  this  Statement/ 

The  Portuguese  text,  according  to  a  copy  preserved 
at  the  National  Library,  Lisbon,'^  is  as  follows  ^ : 

"  Instruction  which  We,  the  Piincipal  Commissioners 
of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty  and  of  His  Catholic 
Majesty  Gomes  Freire  de  And  rada,  and  special  in- 
the  Marquis  de  Valdelirios,  have  agreed  struction  of 
upon  and  signed  for  the  guidance  of  the  ^7^^-^"^^' ^'7^^" 
Commissioners  of  the  second  Demarcating  Party,  Joseph 
Fernandes  Pinto  e  Alpoim,  Colonel  of  the  Pegiment  of 
Artillery,  and  D.  Francisco  de  Ai-guedas,  a  Member  of 
His  Catholic  Majesty's  Council  in  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  Treasury,  so  that  they  may  execute  it  in  the 
manner  prescribed  herein. 

^'-  Art.  1. — Consideriufi  that  the  natives  of  this  coun- 
try  cannot,  on  account  of  their  customs  and  natural 
disposition,    be    governed    by   suitable    rules,  desired 


'  Spanish  text,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  61-66  ;  English  translation,  III.,  67-75.  The 
original  is  at  Simancas  ("  Secri   de  Estado,  Leg?   7,404.") 

The  copy  which  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  produces  is  authenticated  by 
the  General  Director  of  the  Archives  at  Simancas  (5th  October,  1893);  by  the 
General  Director  of  Public  Instruction  (Madrid,  9th  October);  by  the  Minister 
of  the  Interior,  D.  SlGiSMUNDO  MoRET  Y  Prenderg.ast  (9th  October),  and  by 
Mr.  Stephen  Boxsal,  Secretary  to  the  American  Legation  (Madrid,  12th 
October). 

■^  National  Library  of  Lisbon,  "  Archive  do  Conselho  Ultramarino,  Brazil, 
Avulsos,  maço  233."  The  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  Brazilian  Special 
Mission  was  authenticated  on  the  3d  January.  1894,  by  the  Director  of 
the  same  Library,  Sr.  Monte  Pereira,  and  by  the  Sub-Director  of  the 
Section  of  Political  Affairs  in  the  Portuguese  Foreign  Office,  Sr.  Machado  da 
Franca  ;  and  on  the  5th  January,  by  Mr.  Caruth,  American  Minister  at 
Lisbon.  ^ 

^  As  this  Vol.  I.  contains  the  translation  of  the  Statement  of  Brazil,  written 
and  printed  in  Portuguese  in  Vol.  II.,  the  Portuguese  te.xt  of  the  Instruction 
will  be  found  in  the  latter  Vol.  (II.,  pp.  64-69). 


6^  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 


OfTences  and 
punishments. 


by  both  Sovereii^ns  ip  order  to  secure  the 
tninquillity  of  the  Expeditions,  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Second  Demarcating  Party  shall 
endeavor  to  conform  as  much  as  possible  to  Articles 
21,  22,  23,  and  24  of  the  S[)ecial  Instructions,  which 
treat  of  oifences  and  punishments.  But  in  cases  in 
whicli  they  may  find  any  difficulty,  we  grant  them 
power  to  do  that  which  may  seem  to  them  most 
pi-udent  with  the  greatest  concord  and  conformity, 
whicli  is  that  which  the  Contracting  Sovereigns  com- 
mand. 

"  Art.  2. — The  Commissioners  shall  take  the  greatest 

care  to  conform  to   Articles  25,  27,  28,  29,  30,  and  31 

of    the    same    Instructions,    which    treat 

Cosmographers.         n       i  i  •  i  \  r^ 

ot  the  duty  incuml)ent  on  the  Cosmog- 
raphers, because  both  Their  Majesties  command  that 
the  work  they  are  to  do  shall  not  only  be  accurate, 
but  that  it  shall  also  be  profitable  to  the  advancement 
of  science. 

"  Art.  3. — Considering  that  in  the  wildernesses 
and  rugged  places  through  which  this  party  is  to 
travel,  the  help  of  horses  cannot  be  obtained  to  allow 
The  Demarcation  tlieui  to  uiake  the  demarcatlou  in  the 
fronis.  Xavier,     nuumer  lu'cscribed  by  the  Sovereisjus,  we 

on  the  Uruguay,  a  ''  o        ' 

to  the  Pepiry.  have  resolvcd  that  the  Commissioner  of  His 
Catholic  Majesty  shall  go  to  the  village  of  S.  Nicolas, 
and  see  that  the  Canoes,  Guides,  and  Rowers  are  ready, 
so  that  when  the  Commissioner  of  His  Most  Faithful 
Majesty  arrives,  they  may  at  once  proceed  together  to 
that  of  S.  Xavier.,  where  they  shall  emharh  upon  the 
rafts  they  will  have  constriicted  there  with  the  camoes, 
and  they  shall  ascend  tlie  Uruguay  until  they  meet,  on 
its    Western  hank  the  mouth  of  the  river  Pequiri,  or 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  69 

Pepiri  which  they  shall  enter,  continuing  River  pepiry 
wp  its  strecim  as  far  as  its  principal  source,  orPequiry. 
or  as  far  as  tlie  canoes  can  reach.  From  this  point 
they  shall  send  a  Party  on  foot  to  survey  on  the  highest 
ground  the  principal  head  of  the  nearest  river  that 
flows  into  the  Yguassú/ upon  discovering  which,  if  they 
find  that  the  canoes  can  be  carried  on  men's  shoulders, 
the  Commissioner  of  His  Catholic  Maiesty 

«  •/  Nearest  river 

shall  send  a  canoe  which  shall  return  by  flowing  into 
the  same  river  witli  the  information,  and 
with  the  order  that  the  boats  which  shall  be  ready  on 
the  Paraná  go  up  that  river  at  once  to  await  them 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Yguassii,  and  in  the  meantime  the 
provisions  and  canoes  shall  be  conveyed  by  land  to  the 
nearest  river  that  empties  itself  into  the  Yguassu. 

"  Art.  4- — For  the  determination  of  the  principal 
heads  of  the  Pepiri  and  of  the  river  nearest  to  it  that 
empties  itself  into  the  Yguassii,  the  Commissioners 
shall  seek  those    whose   waters  are   most 

1  ^         I       ^        ,     •  p     l^  l        J^     ^  1        Headwaters  of 

abundant;  but  it  the  want  oi  horses  and  thePepiryandof 
baofsrasfe  (in   the  event  of   the   provisions     t^e  affluents  of 

^S'D    O         \  i-  the  Iguagu. 

and  canoes  havins;  to  be  carried  on  the 
shoulders  of  Indians)  does  not  allow  that  determi- 
nation of  the  watercourses  to  be  made,  they  shall 
choose  that  which  may  seem  best  to  them  and 
in  accordance  with  Article  31  of  the  Instructions,^ 
and  they  can  also  take    advantage    of   the    epicheia^ 

'  In  this  document  the  name  of  this  river  was  written  both  Yguassu  and 
Iguaçu. 

''Art.  31  of  the  General  Instructions,  Vol.  III.,  page  43  (English  translation) 
and  Vol.  IV.,  page  39  (Portuguese  text). 

^^'  Epiky, {oh?,.)  sXso  epicay,  epic heia  .  .  .  Reasonableness,  equity  as  opposed 
to  rigid  law."  (Henry  Bradley,  A  N'e-iO   English  Dictionary  on  Historical 


JO  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

offered  Ijy  Article  12,  wliicb  in  this  case  may  be 
applied/ 

"  Ari.  5. — They  shall  go  down  the  River  nearest  to 
the  re[)iri  as  far  as  its  mouth  in  the  Iguaçu,  and  they 
From  the  afflu-  shall  coutinue  down  the  stream  of  this  as 
açi  tl'thV""  **'^^"  ^^«  it'^  '^'^^to  (Falls),  whei-e  they  shall 
Paraná.  leave  the  canoes  if  they  cannot  easily  con- 

vey them,  and  they  shall  go  overland  as  far  as  its 
mouth  in  the  Paraná,  where  they  shall  wait  for  the 
boats ;  and,  having  embarked  in  them,  they  shall  go 
U[)  its  waters  as  far  as  where  the  whirlpools  foi'med  by 
its  Salto  Grrande  (Grreat  Falls)  allow  the  boats  to 
proceed ;  and,  going  to  its  Western  bank,  they  sliall 
send  a  [>arty,  who  shall  go  as  close  as  possible  along 
the  bank  of  the  river,  and  who  shall  survey  it,  as  well 
as  the  ground,  to  see  whether  it  can  find  the  landmark 
left  there  by  the  Third  Party ;  and  when  the  thickness 
of  the  bush  and  the  roughness  of  the  way  do  not 
allow  this  to  be  done  on  foot,  they  shall  take  in  that 
region  the  necessary  observations  to  determine  as  to 
the  course  of  the  river  at  that  spot. 

"  Art.  G. — If  the  head  of  the  River  that  empties 
into    the    Iguaçâ,   and  which  is  helieved  to  he  near 

Principles,  founded  mainly  on  the  materials  collected  by  the  Philological  Society, 
Oxford,  j8qt.) 

In  Portuguese, — epicheia, — epiqueia  ; — in  Spanish,  epiqitcya  (from  the  Greek 
ETtiBÍx^ia  and  èitiEÍHEta). 

" Epiqueya. — In  Spanish  law. — The  benignant  and  prudent  interpretation 
of  the  law,  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  place,  and  person.  This 
word  is  derived  from  the  Greek,  and  is  synonymous  with  the  word  equity.  See 
MURILLO,  nn.  67,  68."  (John  Bouvier,^  Law  Dictionary  adapted  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  of  America  and  of  the  several  States  of  the  Amei-i- 
can  Union,  with  references  to  the  Civil  and  other  systems  of  Foreign  La7v" 
Philadelphia,  1883). 

'  In  Vol.  III.,  page  34  (English  translation),  and  Vol.  IV.,  page  32  (Portu- 
guese text). 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  J I 

tltat  of  tlie  Pepiri,  is  not  found,  or  f  the  iftheheadwa- 
distance  hetween  them  is  so  great,  or  the  *'"  °  ^annot'be 
ground  so  rough  that  they  thinh  the  canoes  reached. 

cannot  he  conveyed  overland,  they  shall  tahe  their  ob- 
servations at  the  spot  they  are  able  to  reach,  and  they 
shall  return  down  the  course  of  the  Uruguay  as  far  as 
the  village  of  Conceição  ( Concepcion),  or  as  that  of 
S.  Xavier,  whence  they  shall  proceed  overland  to  that  of 
Candelária,  and  embarhing  there,  they  shall  go  up  the 
course  of  the  Parana  as  far  as  the  mouth  Return  and 
of  the  Iquaçà,  which  theii  shall  ascendas  far      ^^""^  ^^  ^^^ 

J  tj         s     1  e/  J  Parana  and 

as  its  Salto  (Pedis),  and  carrying  overland  iguaçú. 

tlie  canoes  they  may  have  taken  with  them,  or  building 
others  there,  if  they  cannot  carry  them,  they  shall  go 
up  the  latter  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  some  Mouth  of  an  un- 
River  that  may  be  with  a  slight  difference  ^"°^"  ^*""^"'- 
in  the  same  longitude  in  which  they  consider  the  heads 
of  the  Pepiri  to  be  ;  and,  narvigating  along  it^  as  far  as 
they  can  they  shall  take  the  necessary  6>/>S(?r- tunable  to  reach 
vations,  in  order  that  thay  may  trace  upon  the  headwaters. 
the  Map  they  are  to  construct  a  line  connecting  the  two 
points  observed. 

^^Art.  7. — From  the  place  winch  they  reach'  they 
shall  go  down  its  waters  and  those  of  the  Iguaçu  as 
far  as  the  mouth  of  the  latter  in  the  Pa-        ^^    „     ^ 

From  the  affluent 

raná,  where  thev  shall  take  to  their  boats      oftheiguaçu 

.  to  the  Paraná. 

and  shall  proceed  in  the  same  manner  [)re- 

scribed    in    Article    the    4th.'^        And    this  operation 

being  completed,   they   shall  withdraw  by  the    same 

'  To  this  river,  discovered  and  surveyed  in  1759,  the  name  of  S.  Antonio 
was  given  by  the  Commissioners. 

^  In  the  river  afterwards  named  S.  Antonio. 

^  In  the  Lisbon  copy  the  number  of  the  Article  is  wanting.  It  is  supplied 
herefrom  the  Spanish  copy  at  Simancas    (Vol.  III.  of  this  Statement,  p.  71). 


72  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

river  Píiríiiiá  to  the  Village  of  Candelária,  and  thence 
by  land  to  that  of  Conceição  (Concepcion),  Hence  they 
shall  send  in  canoes  two  Cosmographers,  one  of  each 
nationality,  who  shall  ti'avel  down  stream,  drawing 
The  Survey  of  ^lie  Plan  of  the  Uruguay  as  far  as  where, 
the  Uruguay,      ^^^^   j^g  Eastei'u  baulv,  thc  Ibicuhy  empties 

from  S.  Xavier  to  '  »/  i 

the  Ibicuhy.  itself  into  it,  and  hence  they  shall  with- 
draw whither  they  may  be  commanded, 

'■'■  Article  8. — The  Commissioner  of  liis  Catholic 
Majesty  shall  supply  the  Commissioner  of  His  Most 
Boats  and  Falthful  Majcsty  with  canoes  and  boats  as 
provisions.  ^^^^w  ^g  with  jcrkcd  beef  for  all  the  Party 
under  his  command,  as  we,  the  Principal  Commission- 
ers, have  agreed.  And  in  all  else  that  either  niay  need 
they  shall  assist  one  another  as  provided  in  the  In- 
structions. 

"Article  9. — The  order  to  be  observed  in  the  ad- 
vance by  the  rafts  and  boats  of  the  two  Nations  shall 
Order  of  the  ^c  the  followlug.  The  first  day  the  two 
advance.  Comuiissioners  shall  draw  lots  in  order  to 

determine  who  is  to  lead  the  advance  upon  that  day, 
and,  this  having  been  ascertained,  they  shall  afterwards 
proceed  alternately.  But  if  this  cannot  be  strictly 
carried  out,  either  because  it  seems  to  them  more 
proper  and  necessary  that  the  guides  of  the  river  should 
go  first,  or  on  account  of  some  other  impediment,  they 
shall  not  attach  too  much  importance  to  its  execution, 
but  shall  do  what  may  be  possible  and  may  be  most 
conducive  to  their  common  convenience  and  to  facili- 
tate the  voyage. 

"Article  10. — The  scale  to  which  they  shall  draw  the 
Map  shall  be  the  same  that  was  used   by  the  Third 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  73 

Party,  which  is  ten  inches  to  the  degree,  of  whicli  the 
Commissioners   shall    inform    the   Cosmoo- 
rapners,    warning   them   above   all   tiiat   it 
must  be  executed  with  the  greatest  clearness,  which  is 
what  is  required,  and  is  in  conformity  with   the   inten- 
tions of  the  two  Sovereio^ns. 

"  Article  11. — Inasmuch  as  in  the  cai'rying  out  of 
the  ijvovisions  of  Articles  5,  -^,  5,  ^,  and  7  of  these  In- 
structions there  may  he  sotne  difficvlties  unlimited 
that   loill  not  permit  its  strict  observance,  powers. 

satisfied  of  the  prudence,  zeal,  and  intelligence  of  the 
two  First  Commissioners,  tve  give  them  power  to  act 
as  they  may  think  best,  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  ground  through  which  they  travel,  in  order  to 
conclude  this  part  of  tlie  Demarcation,  leaving  it  (Hear 
and  tvell  marhed,  conformahly  to  the  will  of  our  Sov- 
ereigns. 

"  In  witness  whereof  we,  the  abovesaid  Principal 
Commissioners,  have  signed  it  and  sealed  it  with  the 
Great  Seal  of  our  Arms.  At  the  Ford  of  the  Kiver 
Jacuhy  (Passo  do  Jacuhy),  the  twenty-seventh  of  July 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty-eight." 

This  Special  Instruction  does  not  say,  as  the  Argen- 
tine Government  supposed,  that  the  mouth  of  the 
Pepiry  in    the   Uruguay  is  above   that  of  The  3d 

the. Uruguay-Pita,  neither  does  it  mention  Article, 

the  island  so  much  talked  of,  nor  the  reef  near  the 
mouth  of  the  same  Pepiry. 

What  may  be  read  in  Article  3d  is  simply  this : 


74 


BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 


i'(>irrr<;rESE  text. 

"  Em  atteuçâo  a  que  em 
OS  (lezertos  e  asperezas  por 
donde  deve  bir  esta  Par- 
tida não  poderá  acliar  soc- 
corros  de  cavai larias,  que 
lhe  permittão  fazer  a  De- 
marcação em  os  termos, 
que  prescrevem  os  Sobera- 
nos, temos  disposto,  que 
o  Commissario  de  S.  M. 
C.  vá  ao  Povo  de  S.  Nico- 
láo,  e  disponha,  que  as 
canoas,  Práticos  e  remeiros 
estejam  promptos,  pai'a 
que  quando  chegue  o  Com- 
missai'io  de  S.  M.  F*.  pas- 
sem logo  Juntos  ao  de  Ã 
Xavier,  donde  se  emhar- 
carãvi  em  as  Balças,  que 
aly  formarem  das  canoas, 
e  subiram  pelo  Uruguay 
até  encontrar  pela  sua 
margem  Occidental  a  hocca 
do  liio  Pequirl,  ou  Pepiri, 


SPANISH    TEXT. 

"  En  atencion  a  que  en 
los  desiertos,  y  asperezas 
por  donde  debe  ir  esta 
Partida  no  se  podi'a 
bailar  socorros  de  Cab- 
al lerias,  que  le  permi- 
tan  bazer  la  damarcacion 
en  los  términos  que  pre- 
scriben  los  Soberanos,  he- 
mos disi)uesto  que  el  Com- 
isario  de  S.  M.  C.  se  vaya 
ai  Pueblo  de  San  Nicolas, 
y  disponga  que  las  Canoas, 
Practices  y  Remeros  esten 
prontos  para  que  quando 
llesfue  el  Comisario  de  S. 
M.  F.  passen  luego  juntos 
ai  de  San  Xavier,  donde  se 
emharcarán  en  las  Balsas, 
que  for  maré  ti  alli  de  las 
Canoas,  y  suhirán  por  el 
Uruguay  hasta  encontrar 
por  su  ribera  occidental  la. 
boca  de  el  rio  Pequi  ri  ó 
pela  qual  entraram,  e  con  ti-  Pepiri, por  la  que  entrarán, 
nuarám  aguas  arriba  delle  y  continuarán  aguas  arriba 
até  a  sua  origem  principal,  de  el  basta  su  origen  prin- 
ou  até  donde  possam  che-  cipal,ó  basta  donde  puedan 
gar  as  canoas.  .  .  "  1  llegar  las  canoas " 

The  following  is  a  translation  of  the  two  texts : 
''Considering  that  in  the  deserts  and  rugged  places 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  75 

to  which  this  Party  is  to  go  it  will  not  be  able  to  iind 
the  help  of  horses  that  will  allow  them  to  make  the 
Survey  in  the  conditions  the  Sovereigns  presci'ibe,  we 
have  ordered  that  the  Commissioners  of  His  Catholic 
Majesty  shall  proceed  to  the  Village  of  S.  Nicoláo  (or 
San  Nicolas)  and  shall  arrange  that  the  canoes,  Guides, 
and  rowers  shall  be  ready,  in  order  that  when  the  Com- 
missioner of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty  arrives  they 
shall  at  once  pass  on  together  to  that  of  S.  Xaviei-, 
where  they  shall  embark  upon  the  Rafts  they  shall 
there  construct  with  the  canoes,  and  they  shall  go  up 
the  Uruguay  until  they  meet  on  its  AVestern  bank  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Pequiri,  or  Pepiri,  which  they 
shall  enter,  and  they  shall  continue  ascending  its 
waters  as  far  as  its  principal  source,  or  as  far  as  the 
canoes  can  reach.     .     . 

Nothing  is   said    about   the  Pepiry    «p  ©"«^«J^^J^^^^wo 

stream  of  the  Uruguay-Pita;  nothing  con-  quoted  in  sup- 
cerninti-  any  wooded  island  ;  nothing  about        port  of  the 

^„        .   ,  .  -1         i     j_i  j-l         (?  Argentine  pre- 

any  reef  within  or  without  the  mouth  ot   ^^^^.^^  ^^^^^ 
the  Pepiry.  existed. 

Thus  disappears,  because  it  never  existed,  one  of  the 
two  documents  which  the  Argentine  Government 
alleo-ed,  giving  credit  to  the  inventions  of  the  Spanish 
Commissioners  charged  with  the  second  delimitation 
of  frontiers,  under  the  Treaty  of  1777.  The  other  docu- 
ment is  the  Map  of  1749,  which  will  be  considered 

later  on. 

An  examination  of  the  demarcation  of  1759  to  1760 
will  show  that  the  Commissioners  of  the  two  nations 
appointed  under  the  Treaty  of  1750  carried  out  exactly 
the  instructions  they  received.^ 

'  The  Maps  upon  which  this  survey  of  1759  can  be  studied  are  those  num- 


76  BRAZII.IAN-ARGENriNE 

Um  the  1st  of  February,  1759,  tliey  started  from  S. 
Xavier,*  tlie  most  noi-tlierl y  of  tlie  Missions  the  8[)aiiisb 
The  Commis-  Jesiiits  had  oil  tlie  Uruguay,  and,  therefore, 
sioners  ascend  ^.|j^  nearest  to  the  Brazilian  frontier.    From 

the  Uruguay,  ,  .  t-»       • 

starting  from  tliis  village  to  the  moiitli  of  the  Pepiry, 
s.  Xavier.  afterwards  Pepiry-Guaçú,  it  is,  in  a  straight 
line,  some  150  kilometres,  or  80  English  miles. 

The  expedition  continued,  embarked  on  rafts  and 
canoes,  making  the  survey  of  the  Uruguay. 

On  the  õth,  it  passed  before  the  mouth  of  the 
River  Mboro-  Mbororé,  ail  aííluent  of  the  right  bank, 
re,  t  e  imit  o  ^^^^  ^j^^  limit  of  the  Spanish  occupation  on 

the  Spanish  _  ^  ^ 

occupation.      that  side  of  the  Uruguay. 

The  diary  of  the  Spanish  Commissioners,  speaking 
of  the  river  Mbororé,  says  : 

"...  it  is  also  tlie  extreme  point  readied  by  land 
hjl  tlie  Tiidians  of  Misiones,  who  do  not  venture  to  go 
beyond  it  for  fear  of  the  Oaribsy 

On  the  10th  the  expedition  surveyed  the  mouth  of 
the  Acaraguá  or  Acaraguay,  the  former  Acarana.  There 

bared  7  A  (Map  of  1749,  of  the  Plenipotentiaries),  12  A  (Map  of  1760,  appended 
to  the  Portuguese  Diary  of  that  Demarcation)  and  29  A  (prepared  by  the  Bra- 
zilian Special  Mission  for  the  study  of  this  question). 

Besides  these,  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  can  produce  to  the  Arbitrator 
the  same  Map,  No.  12  A,  but  on  a  larger  scale,  from  a  copy  of  the  very  original 
constructed  by  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish  Commissioners  in  1760.  The  copy 
in  the  National  Library  of  Lislwn  (Archive  do  Conselho  Ultramarino.  Brazil, 
maço  93)  was  photographed,  and  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  Brazilian 
Special  Mission  is  legalized  by  the  Director  of  the  same  Library ;  by  the  Portu- 
guese Foreign  Office  ;  and  by  the  American  Minister  at  Lisbon  (5th  January, 
1894).  The  title  is  : — "Plano  da  Raia  marca- /  í/a  nos  Estados  do  Brazil 
pellos  Offici- 1  aes  da  Segunda  Divizão  pertencente  ao  /  Parlido  do  Rio 
Grande  de  S.  Pedro  na  /  Expedição  do  anno  de  :'j^o.  Copiado  /  do  próprio 
original  q .  se  elevou  na  campanha."  ("  Plan  of  the  border-line  demarcated  in 
the  States  of  Brazil  by  the  Officers  of  the  Second  Division  belonging  to  the 
Party  of  Rio  Grande  de  S.  Pedro  in  the  Expedition  of  the  year  1750.  Copied 
from  the  very  original  which  was  constructed  on  the  spot.") 

'  In  division  H  6  of  Map  29  A. 


BO  UNDA  RY  Q  U EST  I  ON.  TJ 

the  Jesuits  had  had,  from  1630  to   1687,  River 

the  mission  Assnmpcion,  which,  at  the  Acaraguá. 
latter  date,  they  removed  to  tlie  Mbororé,  and  sup- 
pressed in  1641,  taking  the  Indicins  who  composed  it 
to  Yapejii,  in  consequence  of  the  new  invasions  of  the 
Bi-azilians  of  S.  Pauk)/ 

On  the  20th  February  the  Commission-  R.  Guanum- 
ers  passed  the  mouth  of  the  Guanumbaca,  ^^'^^• 

which  already  appeared  under  that  name  in  the  old 
Maps  of  the  Jesuits,  and  before  that  of  r.  Mandiy- 
the  Mandiy-Guaçú,  now  Soberbio,  both  on  Guaçú. 

the  right  bank  ;  on  the  21st  by  that  of  the  Paricay, 
now  Turvo,  on  the  left  bank  ;  on  the  fol-      R.  Paricay. 
lowing  day  by  that  of  the  Itacaray,^  on  the  right,  the 
last  point  which,  in  1759,  the  Guaranys  of 
Misiones  reached  by  water,  as  may  be  seen  itacaray 

in  the  following  passage  from  the  Spanish     of  the  fluvial 

Diary  :  journeys  of 

"  The    Itacaray    is    the    farthest    point     of  ivi'isiiMies^ 
reached  by  the  Indians  of  some  villages  of 
Uruguay,  when  coming  to  gather  the  herb  which  they 
use  in  mate.,  although  there  are  very  few  villages  in 
whose  immediate  neighborhood  it  is  not  cultivated." 

In  the  proper  place  in  this  Statement,  it  will  be 
shown  that,  as  early  as  1788,  according  to  the  Spaniai'd 
Oyáevide,  the  Indians  of  Misiones  did  not  come  so 
near  the  Pepiry  in  their  river  voyages, 

'  The  Diary  of  the  Demarcators  says  that  Assumpcion  del  Acaraguá  was 
founded  about  the  year  1623.  The  true  date  is  1630,  as  may  be  seen  in  Tf.cho, 
Historia  Provintiic  ParaquaraiiC  Sociitalis  yesv,  Lille,  1673,  Lib.  IX,  Cap. 
XXVL  In  1657  these  Indians  separated  themselves  from  those  of  the  mission 
of  Yapeju,  to  form  that  of  La  Cruz  to  the  South  of  the  Aguapey  (division  L  2 
in  Map  N?  29  A). 

*  Division  F  10  in  Map  N?  29  A. 


78  BRAZILIAN-ARGEXTINE 

The  Spanish  Diary  continues : 

"Twenty-tliird  (hiy"  (February  28,  1759).— "The 
Spanish  Party  led  the  advance.  As  far  as  the  Itacaray, 
The  guide  ^^'^  have  several  Indian  guides,  but  thence 
Arirapy.  forwai'd  the  only  one  we  had  was  Fran- 

cisco Xavikk  Akiiíapy,  who  had  gone  up  many  years 
before  in  the  last  journey  the  Indians  of  San  Xavier 
An  i  nt  look-  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  place  which  they  called  Espia" 
out  to  watch  (lookout),  "  because  men  of  the  said  village 
the  movements  y^^^^  ^q  scout  there  in  order  not  to  be  sur- 

of  the  Bra-  •       i    i  i        •  ^  c      i        t^      t 

ziiians  of  s.  prised  by  the  inroads  ot  the  i  aulistas,  to 
Paulo.  which  they  were  at  first  much  exposed." 

Further  on  (õth  day  of  March)  the  Spanish  Diary  says 
that  AinuAi'Y  was  in  the  Pepiry  "some  years  before" 
and  not  "  many  yeai's  before  "  : — "  .  .  .  and  that  by 
this  name  he  had  known  it  in  a  voyage  he  had  made 
some  years  hefore  with  others  fi-om  his  village  to  the 
place  called  Espia." 

That  voyage  could  only  have  been  made  after  1749, 
that  is  to  sa}^,  within  the  ten  years  which  preceded  this 
The  journey  survey  aud  demarcation,  because, — as  will 
of  Arirapy  to  l)e  sliown, — even  in  1749  the  Jesuits  of 
the  Pepiry.  Misiones,  knowing  nothing  about  the  Upper 
Uruguay,  gave  the  name  of  Pepiiy  to  a  river  below  the 
Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  and  not  to  the  Peipiiry  or 
Pepiry  of  the  Paulistas,  the  first  liver  above  the  same 
Salto  Grande  of  the  Uruguay. 

AiiTKAPY,  therefoi-e,  did  not  make  the  voyage  when 
a  child  ("cuando  nino")  as  the  supporters  of  the 
Argentine  pretension  have  said.  In  this  survey  of 
1759  there  was  at  least  one  guide  ;  in  the  surveys  made 
after  the  second  Treaty,  the  Spanish  Commissioners 
did  not  find  a  sinule  one.     There  was  not  in  1788  and 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  79 

1789  ill  Misioiies  one  single  Indian  who  had  gone 
up  the  Uruguay  beyond  the  mouth  of  the  Parioay, 
then  called  Cebollaty,  and  now  Turvo/ 

On  the  23(1  Feljruary,  the  Coiniuissioners  passed  be- 
fore the  mouth  of  the  Jaboty-Guaçú,  a  river  which  to 
this  day  keeps  the  name  of  Jaboty,  but  is  jaboty-Guaçú 
bettei-  known  by  that  of  Pepiry-Mini,  that  or  Pepiry- 
is  to  say,  small  Pepiry.'^ 

On    tlie    following   day    they  advanced    but    little. 
From  the  place    at    which    they   halted    to  rest  they 
already    heard    the    sound    of    the    Great 
Falls  (Salto  Grande),  also  called  now  Salto  ^/^^^í,^^"'  °^ 

\  '^  the  Uruguay. 

de  Moco n a. 

The  days  from  the  2õth  to  the  27th  were  spent  in 
surveying  the  banks  of  the  river  and  the  cataract;  the 
foUowino-  days  to  the  -ttli  of  March  in  ovei'coming  this 
obstacle  which  completely  obstructed  the  navigation. 

The  fall  of  the  river  presented  at  that  time  a  height  of 
about  11  metres  on  the  Western  steep  rock  (36  English 
feet)  and  6  metres  of  the  East  (over  19  feet). 

On  the  4th  of  March,  leaving  the  Great  Falls,  the 
expedition  advanced  only  one  league  ami   encamped 

1  Oyárvide,  in  Calvo,  Recueil  de  Traités,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  i88. 

-  Besides  Maps  N"?  29  A  (prepared  by  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission)  and 
N?  12  A  (Commissioners  of  1759)  the  two  maps  constructed  by  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission,  which,  under  the  Treaty  of  28th  September, 
1885,  made  the  survey  of  the  rivers  which  limit  the  Brazilian  territory  claimed 
by  the  Argentine  Republic  since  1881,  should  now  be.  consulted.  The  fac- 
similes of  those  are  numbered  25  A  (the  one  drawn  by  the  Brazilian  Commis- 
sion) and  26  A  (the  one  drawn  by  the  Argentine  Commission).  The  survey  of 
the  river  Uruguay  began  in  1887  at  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Mini  or  Jaboty 
(Division  F  2  in  Map.  N?  25  A). 

The  Diary  written  by  the  Argentine  Commission  says  : 

"On  the  13th  day  (July,  1887).  the  survey  of  the  Uruguay  was  begun,  the 
first  station  being  situated  on  the  right  bank  of  the  mouth  of  the  river  known 
to  (he  inhabitants  of  the  place  as  the  Pepiry-Mini  and  to  which  others  give  the 
name  of  Jaholi  which  it  lias  in  the  region  of  the  village  of  San  Pedro." 


8o  BR  A  Z/LIA  X-A  RGEN  TINE 

near   the  mouth  of   the  Itayoá  streamlet, 
c^^^^  II  small  affluent  on   the  riofht  bauk.^     On 

Stream.  S)^ 

tlie  following  day,  navigating  two  thirds 
River  Pepiry  ^^^  .^  league  more,  it  reached  the  mouth  of 
the  Pepiry,  which,  therefore,  was  found 
Hve  miles  above  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande). 
Tlie  Diary  of  the  Spanish  Demarcators  says : 
"  Fifth  Day  "(õth  March,!  759).— ''The  Spanish  Party 
led  the  advance  and  we  followed  the  same  Western 
bauk^'  upon  which  we  were,  and,  turning  to  S.S.E.,  in 
which  direction  the  I'iver  flows,  and  there  are  two 
small  reefs  close  together,  we  left  two  torrents  which 
fell  from  between  the  rocks,  which  we  believed  wei'e 
produced  by  the  heavy  rain  of  the  previous  night. 
And  the  numerous  boulders  and  the  shallowness  of  the 
river,  which  turns  to  the  E.S.E.,  caused  no  slight  fatigue. 
In  tliis  direction  there  is  a  reef  terminating  in  a  small 
Small  island  ^'*'^<^*^^''^  <rf  ''<^*'^  ^^^^^  saraucU^  trecs,  and  lying 
near  the  mouth  6'/6>.s'6  to  the  nortlievu  burik.,  icliicli  island  is 
of  the  Pepiry.  ^^.Qygf.^f^  over  at  fiood  time^  and  hehiml  it,  at 
«  distance  of  f  of  a  league  of  the  Itayoá,  is  tlie  month 
of  a  river  ivliich  can  only  he  seen  after  having  dotihled. 
tlie i^int  of  the  islaiui,  tohicli  river,  the  guide  said,  was 
the  Pepiri,  of  lohich  toe  were  in  seardiJ  The  Commis- 
sioners summoned  him  to  their  presence,  and,  all  the 
other  officers  of  the  two  Nations  having  assembled,  asked 


'  In  the  Map  of  the  Brazilian  Commission  (N'.'  25  A)  it  is  named  Itapua. 

-  Right  bank  of  the  Uruguay. 

'  Sarandy,  a  shrub,  whose  scientific  name  is  Phyllantluis  Scllaivianus.  The 
species  was  described  by  M.  Mueller  (d'Argovie),  in  the  Monographie  des 
Suphorbiacées  {Proiã.  de  Candolle,  Vol.  XV.,  2d  Part,  p.  397). 

■*  Under  N?  27  A  (Vol.  VI.)  is  a  fac-simile  of  the  Plan  of  the  inout/i  of  the 
Pepiry-Gitaal  (in  1759  Pepiry  or  Pequiry)  drawn  after  survey,  in  1887,  by  the 
Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  8 1 

him  what  river  that  was ;  aucl  he  replied  again  that  it 
was  the  Pepiri,  and  that  by  this  name  he  had  known  it 
in  a  voyage  he  had  made  some  years  before  with  others 
from  his  village  to  the  place  they  called  Espia.  At 
this  time  there  was  so  little  water  in  the  river  that  it 
was  evident  that  it  was  navigable  for  only  a  short  dis- 
tance. And  knoiving  from  otJier  iiifonnation  that  the 
Pepiri  had  a  reef  near  its  mouth,  the  Com- 
missioners and  the  Astronomer  of  Portugal       ./^^  "tt"^ 

o  the  mouth. 

went  to  explore  it ;  and  it  was  found  at 
half  a  league  from  there.  Notwitlistamling  this,  seeing 
that  ive  had  not  arrived  at  the  latitude  at  which  the 
Pepiri  is  represented  in  the  Map  issued  by  the  Courts, 
and,  furthermore,  that  the  situation  of  the  river  on 
which  ive  were,  heloiv  the  Uruguay-pita,  ivhich  emp>ties 
itself  on  the  opposite  hanh,  tvas  not  in  accordance  with 
the  said  Map,  cohere  it  is  represented  as  being  above  the 
Uruguay-pita  /  in  order  to  correct  this  Map,  and  to  re- 
move any  sort  qfdouht  which  might  be  i-aised  against  the 
testimony  of  the  guide  who  was  the  only  one,  not  merely 
among  those  present,  but  among  the  inhabitants  of  all  the 
villages  of  Misiones,  ivho  coidd  give  any  evidence,  there 
not  then  remaining  any  other  Indian  who  had  navi- 
gated the  river  above  the  Fcdls,  and  as,  many  years  hav- 
ing passed  since  he  had  navigated  it  a  single  time,  he 
might  have  forgotten  it,  the  two  Commissioners  re- 
solved to  go  up  the  Uruguay  on  the  follmving 
day,  anã  also  that  a  plan  of  this  section  of  ^yi°\5^^^  °° 
it  should  he  jointly  drawn  after  survey,  so  above  the 
that  the  comparison  of  the  evidence  he  had  "^°"^h  of  the 

.  .  .  Pepiry. 

previously  given  of  the  rivers  Apiterebi,  and 
Uruguay-pita,  to  the  point  he  said  he   had  reached, 
with  their  true  situation,  might  assure    us  as  to  his 
lcnA)wledge  and  experienced 


82  BRAZILIAN  ARGENTINE 

Ou  the  following  day  the  Commissioners,  As- 
tronomers, and  Geographers  went  \\\>  the  Uruguay  in 
canoes.  At  a  quarter  of  a  league  from  the  Pepiry 
they  saw  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Uruguay  the 
moutli  of  au  unnamed  rivuilet,  now  the  Pari.  Con- 
tinuing in  the  N.E.  dii'ection,  they  i)assed  by 
the  reefs  which  form  the  Ra[)ids,  at  pi'esent  called 
Corredeira  do  Pari,  and  farther  on,  when  the  river 
made  a  bend  whicli  comes  from  East  and  South- 
east, they  crossed  other  rapids,  now  known  as  the 
Corredeira  dos  Macacos  Bi'aucos,  Ilei'e,  near  a  rocky 
island,    they     saw     on    the    right    bank    the    mouth 

of  the  river  "which  the  guide  called  Apl- 
'  tereln^''  a  league  and  a  quarter  distant  from 
the  Pepiry.  Continuing  in  the  direction  of  S.S.E.  and 
afterwai-ds  E.,  they  reached  a  curve  of  the  river,  which 
came  from  N.E.,  and  then  tliey  met  other  rapids,  now 
named  Corredeira  do  Guarita. 
The  Diary  then    says  : 

"The  river  continues  its  bend  to  the  N.E.  and  N.E. 
\  N.,  and   at   the   beginning   of    this    direction,    at  a 

distance  of  about  2i  leao-ues  of   the  Pepiri, 

R.  Uruguay-  ,  .  -JO  i         í 

Pita,  or  Uru-  it  receives  by  the  Eastern  bank  a  large  river 
guay-  ui  a.  ^yiiJc^j  thc  guldc  Said  \N?í9,t\{QUri(guay-2ntã, 
the  furthest  point  to  wiiich  his  knowledge  extended." 
This  distance  of  2^  leagues  between  the  mouth  of 
the  Pepiry  to  the  West,  and  that  of  tlie  Uruguay-Pita 
to  the  East,  is  an  important  point,  as  it 
tween""he^pe-  ^^'ill  appear  lu  thc  Spanish  Instructions 
piry  and  the  2nd    nriveu  subsequeutlv   to  the  Commissioners 

Uruguay-Pita.         ~  T.  »» 

charged  to  make  the  demarcation  of  boun- 
daries under  the  Treaty  of  1777. 

The  expedition  entered  the  Uruguay-Pita : 

"  We   went   up  this   (river)  some    distance   to    see 


BO  UNDA  RY  Q  VEST  I  ON.  83 

whether  the  coloi's  of  its  waters  corresponded  with  its 
name  which  means  the  Red  Uruguay,  ^wà  it  was  found 
that  they  partook  somewhat  of  its  color.  Its  width, 
which  was  measured  at  a  very  short  distance  from  its 
mouth,  is  49  Toises  and  4  feet;  and  its  depth  is  6,  11, 
12,14,  and  16  King's  feet;  and  in  a  navigation  of 
nearly  half  a  league,  we  found  that  it  keeps  its  depth 
of  12  feet,  the  Great  Uruguay  having  no  part  in  this, 
as  l)eing  so  low,  its  waters  could  not  contain  those  of 
the  Pita,  which  is  the  largest  river  we  met  from  S. 
Xavier." 

This  river  Uruguay-Pita,  or  Uruguay-Puita,  of  the 
demarcators  of  1759,  has  been  known  since  the  middle 
of  the  present  century  by  the  name  of  Rio 
da  Uuarita,  which  in  the  Map  of  the  Bra-    two  Historical 

'  ^  -^       ,  errors  to  be  cor- 

zilian-Argentiue  Joint  Commission  appears  rected. 

between  brackets  after  the  name  Mberuy.  ^ 

The  Brazilian  Government  and  the  Brazilian  Special 
Mission  do  not  accept  this  erroneous  application  of  the 
name  Mberuy,  invented  by  the  Spanish  Commissioners 
after  1789;  nor  do  they  accept  that  of  Uruguay- 
Pita,  wrongly  applied  in  the  same  Map  to  the  old  river 
Trigoty,  now  Rio  da  Várzea."  These  are  denominations 
adopted  by  the  Spaniards  of  the  second  demarcation, 
but  repudiated  then  by  the  Portuguese,  and  afterwards 
by  all  Brazilians  who  have  studied  the  two  demarca- 
tions. Among  the  latter  may  be  mentioned  General 
Chagas  Santos  and  Viscount  de  S.  Leopoldo,  whose 
Maps  are  appended  to  this  Statement.^ 

1  In  division  F  2  of  Map  No.  25  A  (Joint  Commission),  and  Division  F  10  of 
No.  2g  A  (Brazilian  Special  Mission). 

2  Division  F  4  in  Map  25  A  ;  Division  F  12  in  No.  29  A. 

3  Map  of  Chagas  Santos,  of  the  beginning  of  this  century,  No.  21  A,  and 
of  S.  Leopoldo,  of  1839,  No.  22  A.  In  both  the  river  surveyed  by  the  Portu- 
guese and  Spanish  demarcators  in  1759  appears  under  the  name  of  Uruguay-Pita. 


84  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

This  point  must  be  made  absolutely  clear  in  order 
to  avoid  confusion.  The  name  Mberuy,  applied  to  the 
Uru^í-uav-Pitá  of  the  demarcators  of  1759,  and  that  of 
Uru<^''uay-Pitâ,  transferred  to  a  river  more  to  the  East, 
formerly  named  Trigoty,  and  called  by  the  Portuguese 
Rio  da  Picada  (now  Rio  da  Várzea),  are  creations  of 
the  Spanish  Commissioners  much  subsequent  to  the 
second  Treaty,  dated  1777. 

The  Brazilian  and  Argentine  Governments,  in  the 
Instructions  of  1885,  charged  the  Joint  Commission  to 
make  a  Plan  after  survey  of  the  disputed  territory,  but 
did  not  direct  tliem  to  attribute  to  the  I'ivers  ancient 
or  historical  names. 

Returnins:  to  the  Uruiruav  on  the  same  6th  day  of 

March,  the  Commissioners  continued  their  expedition 

up  stream  in  the  direction  of  the  E.N.E., 

The    ommis-   pg^ggj^Q.  ^^^q  reefs  and  rapids  now  called 

sioners  con-       i  o  ^  i. 

tinue  to  as-      Corredeira    da    Pedra    Branca    and  Corre- 
cend  the  Uru-  ^^^y^,  da  Jacutin2;a.    They  passed  the  night 

guay  in  1759.       ,  ^^  .  *  -^   ^  ^ 

above  this. 

The  Spanish  Diary  then  says  : 

"  Not  far  from  this  second  reef,  on  the  bank,  an  old 
mortar  was  found  which,  from  its  make,  the  Paulistas 
o-        f..u      recoirnized  as  havino:  beloncced  to  their  peo- 

Signs  of  the  »  ... 

old  Brazilian  pj^^  ^yljo  had  probably  left  it  behind  in  one 
of  their  former  malocas  (inroads  which  they 
used  to  make  against  the  Indians  of  these  settlements  to 
take  them  as  slaves),  and  there  was  also  seen  a  small 
and  veiy  old  clearing  of  trees  which  was  attributed  to 
the  same. 

"  The  banks  on  the  bottom  of  the  river  are  for  the 
most  part  of  rock  with  high  steep  bank  and  a  moun- 
tain on  either  side,  although  not    so  high  as    in  the 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  8$ 

neighborhood   of  the  Falls,  and  always  covered  with 
trees." 

On  the  7th  of  March  the  Commissioners  continued 
the  ascent  of  the  Uruguay,  passing  by  a  rocky  island 
(Ilha  da  Fortaleza)  and  they  reached  the 

^  ^  .  ,       .     ,  Rocky  Island 

small    cataract   of   two    metres    in    height  andsmaii 

(6  English  feet)  known  as  Salto  da  For-  "^  ^'^'' ' 

taleza.^     Thence  they  returned  to  the  Pepiry,  as  may  be 
seen  in  the  following  passage  of  the  Spanish  Diary  : 

"  SeventliDay  "  (7th  March,  1759).— "We  continued 
our  advance  in  the  direction  ^of  the  E.N.E.,  from 
which  by  the  slope  of  the  hill  a  stream  enters  the  river 
on  the  Northern  bank ;'  which  turning  to  the  S.E.  \  E., 
receives  another  on  the  opposite  side.  It  turns  to  the  S. 
|-  S.E.,  and  in  this  direction,  at  a  little  more  than  half 
a  league,  there  is  a  rocky  island,  small  but  Nowcaiied 
hifh,^  havino;  passed  which  we  saw  a  lar2;e      smaiiFaiisof 

•■^     '  o    J-  .        ^  Fortaleza. 

Waterfall,  which  we  judged  to  be  a  toise  in 
height,  forming  steps  over  which  the  water  leaped  im- 
petuously, obstructing  the  advance.^  We  stopped  in 
front  of  the  island,  and  sent  a  small  boat  forward  to 
examine  the  Fall,  and  with  orders  that,  if  on  either  side 
a  passage  could  be  found,  the  advance  should  be  con- 
tinued around  a  point  which  could  be  seen  in  the  dis- 
tance, and  that  it  should  be  ascertained  whether  on  the 
Western  side  any  river  entered  which  would  agree 
better  with  the  Map  issued  by  the  Courts.  The  small 
boat  was  accom[)anied  to  the  foot  of  the  Fall  by  some 
of  the  officers  who  reported  that  in  order  to  continue 
the    navigation    it    would  be   necessaiy    to   execute  a 

'  Division  F  3  in  Map  No.  25  A  (of  the  Joint  Commission);  Division  F  11  of 
Map  No.  29  A  (of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission). 
"  The  island  of  Fortaleza. 
'  Falls  of  Fortaleza. 


86  BRAZIL! AX-ARGENTINE 

manoeuvn'e  of  liauling  the  boats  (a  carry)  such  as  we 
had  made  at  the  Gi'eat  Falls,  and  the  crew  of  the  small 
boat,  who  went  some  distance  by  laud,  did  uot  hud  any 
river  Nvhatever. 

"  lu  view  of  this  difficulty,  and  of  the  fact  that  the 
Conference  of  '^^'^^'i^^^^s  suiall  streauis  whicli  SO  repeatedly 
7th  March,  discharge  iuto  that  side  (of  the  Ui'uguay) 
^^59'  gave  us  no  hope  of  there  being  a  larger  river 

near  by,  the  Commissioners  called  together  the  As- 
tronomers and  Geographers  of  the  two  Nations ;  and, 
statement  made  whcu  tlicy  had  all  asscuiblcd,^  the  Com- 
by  the  first         missiouei'  of  His  Catholic  Maiesty  explained 

Spanish  Commis-  ti  ./  l 

sioner  Arguedas.  hig  uiotivcs  for  tlic  j)recaution  which  he 
had  taken,  and  for  the  fear  he  had  tliat  the  Pepiri 
might  not  be  the  river  wliich  the  guide  had  })()iuted 
out,  both  because  its  latitude  and  position  did  not 
agree  with  those  laid  down  in  the  aforesaid  Map,  and 
because  after  so  many  years  he  might  have 

Doubts  he  had.       „  ip  r-iiiii 

lorgotten  the  leatures  ot  the  land  and  the 
rivers.  He  also  explained  the  reasons  which  removed 
his  doubt  after  this  examination  had  been  made,  which 
reasons  were  based  on  the  assertion  of  the  said  guide, 
who,  in  the  month  of  November  in  the  year  1757,  had 
assured  him,  at  the  village  of  S.  Xavier,  that  not 
only  had  he  been  to  the  Pepiri,  which  should  be 
reached  on  the  same  day  after  leaving  the  Salto  Grande 
(Great  Falls)  of  the  Uruguay,  which  fui'thermore  he 
had  repeated  on  different  occasions  in  the  course  of  the 
journey,  but  that  he  had  gone  beyond  it,  now  stating 
that  he  had  only  reached  the  Uruguay-pita ;  he  (the 


'  This  conference  of  the  7th  March,  1759,  took  place  near  the  Salto  Pequeno 
or  Saltinho  da  Fortaleza  (Small  Falls  of  Fortaleza). 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  8/ 


Spanish  Commissioner)  was  convinced  that  ^^^^  .^,^^^^,.„„ 
the  rivei-  he  (the  s^uide)  liad  known  by  tlie        of  the  guide 

•  1      1    •       1  1     J.1      J-     "j-  confirmed. 

name  of  Pepin  was  behind,  and  that  it 
could  be  no  other  tlian  that  he  (the  guide)  had  pointed 
out  and  said,  because  this  was  the  only  p^pj.y  ^ear  the 
river  which  could  be  reached  on  the  same  ^^^I'Xl^^ 
day  after  leaving  the  Salto  (Falls).  And 
inasmuch  as,  on  the  other  hand,  the  information  he  had 
given  concerning  the  two  other  riveis  Apiterebi  and 
Uruguay-Pita,  which  he  knew,  was  found  to  agree  with 
their  true  location,  it  was  evident  that  he  had  not  for- 
gotten their  features.  Besides  this,  his  testimony  was 
proved  by  other  printed  Maps,  and  by  some  ^^^^^  ^^^^  ^„„. 
manuscripts  made  by   the  Indians  during  firm  the  informa- 

^  "^  ^  .  .       tion  of  the  guide. 

the  time  when  they  used  to  navigate  in 
these  parts,'  which  place  the  Uniguay-pitá  above  the 
Pepiri,  near  the  mouth  of  which  hitter  they  had  found 
the  reef,  which  according  to  infoi'mation,  was  known 
to  be  there ;  and  the  said  Commissioner  concluded  by 
saying  that,  if,  notwithstanding  these  reasons,  any  one 
entertained  still  any  suspicion  or  doubt,  or  if  there  oc- 
curred to  any  one  any  further  investigation  that  could 
be  undertaken  in  order  to  attain,  if  possible,  a  greater 
certainty  in  the  identification  of  the  river,  the  sugges- 
tion should  be  made,  inasmuch  as  we  were  still  in  time 
to  carry  it  into  execution. 

1  The  Report  of  1892  of  the  Argentine  Foreign  Office  attributes  to  Councillor 
Paranhos  (Viscount  de  Rio-Branco)  this  quotation  of  printed  and  Manu- 
script Maps  locating  the  Uruguay-Pita  above  the  Pepiry.  It  is  true  that  this 
is  the  reading  in  the  Memorandum  of  1857  (Portuguese  text  Vol.  IV.  ;  English 
translation,  Vol.  III.),  but  the  first  who  made  this  assertion  was  the  Spamsh 
Commissioner  Arguedas,  at  the  Conference  of  7th  March,  I759-  And  in  this 
Statement  it  will  be  proved  that  Arguedas  spoke  the  truth,  because  all  the 
Maps  printed  before  that  of  the  Plenipotentiaries,  of  174c,  giv^'  the  mouth  of 
the  former  Pepiry,  in  the  Uruguay,  belo^o  that  of  the  former  Uruguay-Pita. 


88 


BRA  ZILIA  N-ARGEN  TINE 


"  All  ao-reed   that   there  was  no   doubt 

All  agree  that  '-' 

the  river  pointed  fjiat  the  I'iver  was  the  Pepiri,  which  was 

out  by  the  guide  i  •  t,i  l 

isthe  Pepiryof  alwajs  a  veij  iai-ge  river,  altliougli 
the  Treaty.        ^^^  ^j^j^  ^-^^^  ^^  foiíiid   little  Water  in  it, 

as  was  also  the  case  with  the  Uruguay  itself ;  and 
upon  this  agreement  it  was  resolved  to  turn  back 
to  the  camp  where  we  arrived  after  four  and  a  half 
hours'  navigation  down  stream,  having  passed  the 
reefs  at  great  risk  but  without  accident,  by  their  chan- 
nels in  which  the  head  winds  raised  furious  waves 
which,  repeatedly  breaking  into  the  boats,  wetted  us 
all.  And,  just  after  we  had  arrived,  a  heavy  rain  fall 
which  continued  during  part  of  the  night." 

Next,  under  date  of  8th  March,  1759,  comes  the  Act 
of  recognition  and  identification  of  the  River  Pepiry 

Actofidentifi-f^l"l'^q"i'y- 

cation  of  the         The  Spanish  Diary  for  the  8th  day  be- 
gins thus  : 


Pepiry. 


"  All  beino;  certain  that  the  river  at  the  mouth  of 
which  we  were  was  the  Pepiri,  the  following  Act  of 
identification  was  made  and  signed  by  all." 

This  is  the  document  reproduced  according  to  the 
two  Portuguese  and  Spanish  originals  : 


PORTUGUESE   TEXT. 

"  Os  Commissarios  da 
Segunda  Partida  de  De- 
marcação Joseph  Fernan- 
des Pdíto  Alpoym  por 
S.  M.  F.,  e  D.  Francisco 
Arguedas  por  S.  M.  C, 
ouvido  o  parecer  unanime 
dos  Astrónomos,  Geo- 
graphos,    e    officiaes    das 


SPANISH  text. 

"  Los  Commissarios  de 
la  Segunda  Partida  de  De- 
marcacion  D.  Francisco 
Arguedas  por  S.  M.  C.  y 
Joseph  Fernandes  Pinto 
Alpoym  por  S.  M.  F.  oido 
el  parecer  unanime  de  los 
Astrónomos,  Geographos 
y  Oficiales  de  las  dos  Na- 


BO  UNDAR  Y   Q  UESTION. 


duas  Nações,  os  quaes  em 
virtude  das  razoens  expos- 
tas na  junta  antecedente, 
e  da  affirmaçáo  do  índio 
vaqueano  Francisco  Xa- 
vier Arirapí,  Sargento  do 
seo  Pov^o  de  S.  Xaviei',  cujo 
conhecimento,  e  noticia 
destes  rios  se  comprovou 
com  a  conformidade  que 
se  achou  entre  as  que  del- 
les  dava  e  sua  verdadeira 
situação,  disserâo  lhes  náo 
ficava  a  menor  duvida,  de 
que  era  o  Pepirí  o  rio  que 
o  ditto  vaqueano  assignava 
e  em  cuja  bocca  estavâo 
campadas  as  Partidas ;  e 
assim  declaramos,  que  re- 
conhecemos este  pelo  Rio 
Pe[)irí  determinado  no  Art. 
õ?  do  Tratado  de  limites, 
por  fronteira  dos  Domínios 
de  Suas  Magestades  Fidel- 
lissima,  e  Catholica ;  em 
consequência  do  que  a 
Demarcação  começada  no 
Povo  de  S.  Xavier,  e  se- 
guida agoas  acima  do  Uru- 
guay até  a  bocca  deste, 
deve  continuar  por  elle  se- 
guindo o  seo  curs(^  até  as 
suas  cabeceiras,  sem  eni- 
bar<xo  de    se   náo  achar  a 


clones,  quienes  (en  fuerza 
de  las  1'azones  expuestas 
en  la  junta  antecedente,  y 
de  la  asercion  dei  índio 
vaqueano  Francisco  Xa- 
vier Arirapí,  Sargento 
de  su  Pueblo  de  San  Xa- 
vier, cuyo  conocimiento,  y 
noticia  de  estos  rios  se 
compi-obó  con  la  confor- 
midad  que  se  halló  entre 
las  que  de  ellos  daba,  y  su 
verdadeia  situacion)  di- 
jeron  no  les  quedaba  la 
menor  duda  de  que  era  el 
Pepiri  el  rio,  que  dicho 
vaqueano  designaba,  y  en 
cuya  boca  estaban  acam- 
padas las  Partidas,  decla- 
ramos este  por  el  Rio 
Pepirí  determinado  en  el 
Articulo  quinto  dei  Tra- 
tado de  Limites  por  fron- 
tera  de  los  Domínios  de 
Sus  Magestades  Catholica 
y  Fidelisima  y  en  su  conse- 
quência, que  la  demarca- 
cion  emj^ezadaen  el  Pueblo 
de  San  Xavier,  y  seguida 
aguas  arriba  dei  Uruguay 
hasta  la  boca  de  este  debe 
continuai-  siguiendo  su  cur- 
so hnzia  sus  cabezei'as,  sin 
embariro  de  no  hallarse  su 


90 


BK  A  Z/LIA  N-A  KG  EN  TINE 


sua  eífectiva  posição  con- 
forme a  ([lie  se  dá  no 
Ma[)[)a  de  Demarcação 
dado  pelas  duas  Cortes, 
não  devendo  conforme  a 
declaração  assignáda  nas 
costas  delle  pelos  Excel- 
lentissimos  Senhores  Pleni- 
potenciários TlIOMAZ  DA 
Sylva  Telles,  Visconde 
DE  Ponte  de  Lima,  e  D. 
Joseph  de  Carvalhal  e 
Lancastre,  attender-se  ao 
dito  Mappa  senão  em 
(juanto  este  se  acha  con- 
forme ao  Tratado;  e  para 
que  em  todo  o  tempo 
conste  este  Acto  de  reco- 
nhecimento, e  termo  daDi- 
vizão  de  Limites  fizemos  a 
presente  declaração,  fir- 
mada i)or  todos  os  abaixo 
assignados. 

"  Bocca  do  llio   Pepirí, 
oito  de   Março  de  mil  set- 
tecentos  cincoenta  e  nove. 
"  Joseph      Frz.     P™ 

Alpoym. 
"António  da  Veiga 

d' And  rada. 
"  Manoel      Pacheco 

DE  Christo. 


efectiv^a  posicion  conforme 
á  la  (pie  le  dá  el  Mapa 
de  la  Demarcacion  dada 
por  las  dos  Cortes,  no 
debiendo,  segun  la  de- 
claracion  signada  en  el 
reverso  de  el  por  los 
Exr''  Sres.  Plenipoten- 
ciários Don  Joseph  de 
Carva.tal  y  Lancaster, 
y  Vizconde  Don  Tho.a[as 
DA  Sylva  Telles,  atten- 
derse  á  dicho  Mapa  sino 
en  quanto  este  se  halle 
confoi"me  ai  Tratado, 
y  para  que  en  todo 
tiempo  conste  este  acto 
de  reconocimiento,  y 
lindero  de  la  division 
de  tei'minos,  hicimos  la 
presente  declaracion  fir- 
mada por  todoslos  infra- 
sciitos. 

"  Boca  dei  Kio  Pepiíí,  y 
Marzo  8  de  1759. 

"  Fran*^."  Argued  as. 

"  Francisco  Millau. 

"  JUAN  MaRRON."  ' 


'  Each  one  of  the  two  documents  registered  in  the  Portuguese  and  in  the 
Spanish  Diary,  has  these  six  signatures. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  9^ 

This  is  the  translation  of  the  above  document :  ^ 
"  The  Commissioners  of  the  Second  Party  of  Demar- 
cation,  Joseph  Fernandes  Pinto  ALPOVM^for  His 
Most  Faithful  Majesty,  and  D.  Francisco  Argued  as, 
for  His  Catholic  Majesty,  having  heard  the  unanimous 
opinions  of  the  Astronomers,  Geographers,  and  Officers  of 
the  two  Nations,  who,  in  view  of  the  reasons  stated  at  their 
previous  meeting,  and  of  the  affirmation  of  the  Indiaii 
Guide,  Francisco  Xavier  A  rir  a  pi,   sergeant  in  his 
village  of  S.  Xavier,  whose  acquaintance  with  and  in- 
formation as  to  these  rivers  were  confirmed  by  the  agree- 
ment which  is  found  between  the  information  he  gave 
concernino^  them  and  their  trtte  situation,  have  declared 
that  not  the  least  doubt  remains  in  their  minds  that  the 
river  ivhich  the  said  guide  pointed  out  and  at  whose 
mouth  the  Party  were  encamped,  zvas  the  Pepiri  ;  and  we 
accordÍ7igly  declare  that  we  recognize  this  as  the   River 
Pepiri  referred  to  in  Article  5  of  the    Treaty  of  Limits 
as  the  Boundary  between  the  Dominions  of  Their  Most 
Faithful  and  Catholic  Majesties  ;  and  consequently  that 
the  Demarcation  begun  at  the  village  of  S.  Xavier  and 
contÍ7iued  up  the  course  of  the  Uriiguay  to  the  mouth  of 
this  river,  must  follozv  its  coicrse  ip  to  its  headwaters, 
although  it  was  found  that   its  real  situation  does  not 
agree  with  that  which  the  Map  for  the  Demarcation, 
issued  by  the  two  Courts, -attributes  to  it,  as  according  to  the 
declaration  at  the  back  thereof  signed  by  Their  Excellen- 
cies the  Plenipotentiaries    Thomazda    Silva    Telles, 
Viscount  de  Ponte  Lima  and  D.  Joseph  de  Car- 
valhal e  Lancastre,  no  attefttion  must  be  paid  to  the 
said  Map  except  so  far  it  may  be  in  conformity  with  the 

»  The  translation  of  the  Portuguese  text  only  is  given  because  that  of  the 
Spanish  text  would  present  the  same  result  with  the  mere  differences  resulting 
from  the  application  of  the  diplomatic  rule  of  the  alternat. 


92  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Treaty  ;  and,  in  07'dcr  that  thi'ough  all  time  this  Act  of 
recognitio7i  and  histriinient  of  Division  of  Li^nits  may 
bear  luitncss  thereto,  we  have  made  the  present  declara- 
tion signed  by  all  as  hereu7ider. 

*'  Month  of  the  river  Pepiri,  eighth  of  March,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  a7id  fifty-nine.'' 

Tlie  Spanish  Diary  thus  continues  : 

"  The  River  Pepiri,  is  also  called  Pequiri,  and  it 
seems  that  this  name,  which  means  river  of  the 
„    .  mojai'ras/   suits    it   better    on    account   of 

Pepiry  or  . 

Pequiry.  The  those  fish  being  fouud  there  ;  nevertheless 
Commission-    ^y^.  y^r\\\  j.^taiu  for   it  the  first  name  Pepiri 

crs  orcfcr  the 

former  name,  ^^^cause  the  pronunciation  is  softer  and  in 
order  to  distinguish  it  from  another  Pequiri 

which  fiows  into  the  Paraná  by  its  Eastern  bank  above 
the    Great   Falls    (Salto   Gi-ande) '   of  the 

Because  there 

is  another  latter,  and  it  is  the  first  important  river 
Pequiri,  an  that  may  be  called  a  full-flowing  one 
Para"'  ^      ^  (caudaloso)  which  also  enters  the  Northern 

bank  of  the  Uruguay  above  the  Great 
i'alls,  the  Demarcation  that  is  made  by  it  agreeing  with 

that  made  alons;  the  river  Gatimi  by  the 

Pepiry,  first         ,^,  .    ,   ^^  •      i        i  i  -      ^ 

important  river  Third  i  arty,  as  in  botli  cases  tlie  terminal 
above  the  boundary,  in   the  I'ivers  Paraná  and  Uru- 

guay is  the  first  full-flowing  aflfluent  above 

'  J\/ojar?-a  :  Spanish]  name  of  a  small  fresh-water  fish  known  in  Brazil  as 
Piaba. 

-  In  the  Portuguese  Diary  this  passage  begins  thus  : 

"  Although  the  River  Pepiri  should  more  properly  be  called  the  Piquiri, 
which  name  means  river  of  Piabas  (small  fish),  on  account  of  those  that  are 
found  in  it,  yet  we  will  retain  for  it  the  former  name  of  Pepiri,  because  the  pro- 
nunciation is  softer,  and  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  another  Pequiri  which 
flows  into  the  Paraná  by  its  eastern  bank  above  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande)." 

The  position  of^the  other  Pequiri,  an  affluent  of  the  Paraná,  is  shown  in  the 
Map  of  Southern  Brazil,  and  in  Uhat  of  the  Ititteracy  of  Cabeza  dc  Vaca  (No. 
31  in  the  small  Atlas  which  forms  Vol.  V.  of  this  Statement). 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  93 

their  Falls ;  and  although  the  Falls  of  the  Uruguay, 
from  which  the  Pepiri  is  only  little  more  than  a 
league  distant,  are  a  natural  landmark  of  the  most 
visible  and  durable  sort  for  the  recognition 
of  this  river  at  all  times,  as  is  also  the  natural  mark 
island  lying  immediately  at  its  mouth,  when 
the  Uruguay  is  low,  nevertheless,  as  being  one  of  the 
most  important  points  of  our  Division,  we  stopped 
there  to  take  some  observations  of  longitude  and  lati- 
tude, in  order  to  be  able  to  fix  its  position  with  more 
precision  and  security  ;  and,  on  a  point  which  the 
Eastern  bank  of  the  Pepiri  forms  with  the  Korthei-n 
bank  of  the  Uruguay,  a  clearing  was  made,  leaving  in 
the  middle  only  a  single  tree  of  thirteen  feet  in  height, 
on  which  a  Cross  was  placed  and  on  the  arms  of  the 
Cross  these  letters  were  carved  :   li.  F.  Axo  íde  1759." 

In  the  Portuguese  Diary  the  last  lines  of  the  above 
passage  are  as  follows  : 

" .  .  .  and  on  a  point  which  the  Eastern  bank  of 
the  Pepiri  forms  with  the  Northern  bank,  a  clearing  of 
trees  was  made,  leaving  in  the  middle  only  one  of  thir- 
teen feet  in  height,  upon  which  a  Cross  was  placed, 
and  upon  its  arms  these  letters  were  carved :  R.  F. 
(Most  Faithful  King)  Axno  de  1759." 

In  the  Instructions  given,  after  the  Treaty  of  1777, 
to  the  Spanish  Commissioners,  charged  with  the  second 
delimitation  of  frontiers,  mention  of  this  mark  of  1759 
will  be  found,  and  of  the  latitude  then  observed,  which 
constitute  tw^o  other  undeniable  pi-oofs  that  the  River 
Pequiry  or  Pepiry-Guaçú  of  the  second  and  last  Treaty 
of  Limits  concluded  between  Portugal  and  Spain  was 
the  same  Pepiry  or  Pequiry  demai'cated  in  1759,  that  is 
to  say,  the  same  river  that  has  formed  since  the  XVIlth 


94  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

century  tlie  bouiulary  of  Brazil  in  the  territory   which 
the  Argentine  Repul)lic  has  chiinied  since  1S81. 

The  average  of  seventeen  observations  gave  as  the 
Latitude  of  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry  27°  09'  23".  In 
T    »•.  A     ffu    1780,  the  new  demarcators  found  27°  IH' 

Latitude  of  the  ' 

mouth  of  the      30",  aud  in  1887,  after  more  tlian  one  hun- 
Pepiry.  (\y{i,i\  obsei'vatious,  tlie  Brazilian- Ai'geutine 

Joint  C'ommission  adopted  the  average  of  27°  10'  03". 

The  Longitude  could  not  be  determined  ^vith  pre- 
cision in  1759.  The  astronomers  remained  at  that 
point  nearly  two  months,  but  almost  inces- 
ongi  u  e.  ^^^^^  rains  and  fogs  only  allowed  them  to 
observe  the  immersion  of  one  satellite  of  Jupiter.  The 
correspondence  with  the  times  of  Paris  and  Greenwich 
could  not  be  established  because  the  calculations  made 
according  to  the  Tables  of  Cassini  and  Bradley  gave 
unacceptable  results,  the  former  presenting  for  the 
phenomenon,  at  the  more  easterly  of  those  Observa- 
tories, less  time  than  the  other  gave  foi-  the  more 
westerly  Obsei'vatory.  This  placed  the  Pe[)iry  nearer 
the  Meridian  of  Paris  than  to  that  of  Greenwich,  or, 
better,  located  Greenwich  to  the  East  of  Paris.  More- 
over, the  pendulum  used  by  the  observers  could  not 
inspire  confidence,  after  so  many  shakings  in  the  pas- 
sage of  rapids  and  waterfalls,  and  because  the  observa- 
tion was  taken  in  unfavorable  weather.  "It  was 
thought  that  it  was  not  to  be  trusted,"  says  the  Diary, 
"  while  there  were  no  coiresponding  observations  of 
knowiT  ])laces  with  which  to  compare  it." 

In  the  second  demarcation  it  was  reckoned  that  the 
mouth  of  the  Pepiry  (then  already  Pepiry-Guaçú)  was 
53°  54'  08"  West  of  Greenwich.  In  1887  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission  began  to  determine  pro- 
visionally, by  the  chronometric  method,  the  Longitude 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  95 

of  03°  46'  06".8  West  of  Greeinvicli  (Field  Book  and 
Plan  of  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guacii),  hut  sub- 
sequently the  Brazilian  Commission  adopted  that  of 
53°  48'  19",  which,  when  the   triangulation 

fi'   1      1  li     1   J!  ^1  •  ^'  £•     Survey  of  the 

nislied,  resulted  ii-om  the  position  ot    p^pji-y   i-cg 

that  point  referred  to  the  Meridian  of 
Palmas  which  it  was  possible  to  establish  with  all 
precision,  this  town  being  in  telegraphic  communication 
with  the  Observatory  of  Rio  de  Janeiro.  The  Argen- 
tine Commission  in  its  Map  locates  the  month  of  the 
Pepiry-Giiavii  at  53°  oO'  11". 

Obeying  the  Instructions  they  had  received,  the 
First  Commissioners  determined  to  order  the  survey  of 
the  Pepiry  as  far  as  its  principal  headwater,  if  it  ivere 
j)0ssihle. 

The  Spanish  Diary  says  (13th  March,  1759) : 

"  With  this  information  the  Commissioners  deter- 
mined to  send  by  land  the  Party  which,  according  to 
Article  3  of  the  Special  Instructions  was  to  be  sent 
from  the  place  whence  forward  the  Pepiry  conld  not 
be  navigated,  with  orders  to  survey  its  course  if  2)0S- 
sihle  to  its  source,  which  did  not  ap})ear  to  l)e  very 
distant;  and  that  from  this,  following  the  highest 
ground,  it  should  seek  the  source  of  the  nearest  rivei- 
flowing  to  the  Iguaçu." 

On  the  14th  of  March  this  expedition  set  out,  led  by 
the  Portuguese  and  Spanish  Geographers,  Pacheco  de 
CiiRTSTO  and  Francisco  Millau,  taking  provisions  for 
twenty  days. 

On  the  28th  it  passed  by  the  mouth  of  an  Eastern 
affluent  which  the  geographeis  called  Trahiras  (in 
Spanish  Tarai/ra.%  the  name  of  a  fish),  and 
immediately   after   by   "a  large  and   very 


Trahiras 
stream. 


high  sheer  rock  with  some  excavations  at 


go  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

its  base  produced  by  the  continued  beating  of  the 
waters  ..."  Tliey  gave  this  phice  the  name  of 
Covas. 

On  the  29th  the  Spanish  Diary  says : 

"  We  set  out  at  6  in  the  morning,  and  after  having 
River  Pepiry-  uavigated  to  N.W.  about  385  toises,  we 
'*^'"*-  came  to  a  fork  where  the  river  divides  into 

two  nearly  equal  branches,  both  of  which  were  examined 
to  ascertain  which  of  the  two  was  the  larger  by  which 
we  were  to  continue  our  course.  The  one  on  the  right, 
coming  from  the  N.E.,  had  a  sufficient  volume  of 
water  with  little  current,  and  was  narrower  than  that 
on  the  left,  whose  waters,  besides  exceeding  in  volume 
those  of  the  other,  had  more  current.  To  the  fovmer 
the  name  of  Pepiri-Mlni  ivas  given,  and  we  went  up  the 
second  which  at  a  short  distance  upstream  widens 
againP  * 

Therefore  this  name  of  Pepiry-Mini,  which  means 
— small  Pe[)iiy — was  given,  on  the  29th  of  March, 
17Õ9,  to  an  Eastern  affluent  of  the  old  Pepiry,  and  by 
Commissioners  who  wei'e  authorized  to  do  so  under 
Article  XI  of  the  Treaty  of  1750.' 

Thence  upwards  the  difficulties  of  the  navigation 
increased  until,  two  davs  later,  the  expedi- 

Falls.  .  .  •  \  ,  .    ^        . 

tiou  was  detained  by  another  Fall  (Salto). 
In  view  of  this  obstacle,  and  being  without  provisions 
They  determine  ^^  Carry  thc  survcy  to  the  sources  of  the 
to  go  back.  Pepiry,  the  Geographers  determined  to  go 

back,  leaving  at  that  place  a  wooden  mark,  as  shown 
by  the  following  [)assage  of  the  Spanish  Diary: 

"Thirty-first  day"  (81st  March,  1759).— "We  went 
out  at  six  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  at  eight,  having 

'  Division  E  3  in  Map  No.  25  A  and  division  E  11  in  No.  29  A. 
*  English  translation,  Vol.  III.,  14  ;  Portuguese  text,  IV.,  13. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  97 

passed  a  brook  on  the  Eastern  bank,  and  travelled 
more  than  a  league  in  the  direction  of  W.S.W.,  S.W., 
S.S.E,,  S.W.  \  W.,  and  W.S.  W.,  we  came  to  a  very  large 
Fall  which  crossed  the  river  from  side  to  side,  whose 
height  was  two  toises,  and  only  on  the  Eastern  side 
there  was  a  little  channel  two  spans  wide  which  rushed 
very  swiftly  between  two  high  rocks  near  which  there 
was  a  great  depth  of  water,  which  prevented  the  push- 
ing of  the  canoes.  Considering  the  difficulty  of  passing 
this  Fall,  and  the  risk  of  wrecking  the  said  canoes  if 
we  attempted  to  do  so,  we  resolved  to  turn  back  from 
this  place  and,  before  doing  so,  set  up  a  Landmark 
which  should  serve  as  a  signal  that  we  could  recoo-nize 
when  coming  from  the  source  downwards.  On  the 
Western  bank,  from  which  a  very  high  mountain  rano-e 
rises,  we  cut  down  all  the  trees  and  bushes  on  the  bank, 
leaving  standing  only  a  very  large  one  of  the  kind 
called  Tapiá,  15  Toises  distant  from  the  water; 
and  at  the  height  of  abont  8  spans,  its  trunk  divided 
into  three  very  large  high  and  much  bent  limbs ;  and  on 
one  which  pointed  towards  the  direction  of  the  sources 
a  Cross  was  carved,  the  perpendicular  of  which  was 
two  spans  and  the  arms  one.  From  the  foot  of  this 
tree  a  track  was  opened  towards  the  North,  ending  half 
way  up  the  mountain  range,  and  we,  the  t\vo  Geoo-- 
raphers,  made  a  plan  of  the  ground  and  a  drawino- 
of  the  tree.  At  midday,  we  began  our  downward 
navigation,  and,  when  it  was  nearly  dark,  we  reached 
the  place  where  the  canoes  had  been  left.     .     .     ." 

Then,  going  down  the  river,  the  two   Geographers 
reached   the  camp    at    the  mouth  on  the 

.^,         c     A        -1  TIT  T  1        T-c  Arrival  at  the 

4th  ot  April,  and  delivered  to  the  tirst  mouth  of  the 
Commissioners  the  Journal  of  the  expedi-  Pepiry. 

tion  and  the  Plans  drawn  after  survey. 


98  BRAZ/LIA  N-ARGENT/XE 

Accordino;  to  tlieir  calculations,  the  distance  trav- 
elled from  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiiy  to  the 
the  Pepiry  Falls  (Salto)  where  the  mark  was  left  was 
explored.  2-4^  leagues,  and  they  supposed  the  sources 
to  be  distant  from  that  point  only  12  or  15  leagues. 

In  fact,  on  account  of  the  numerous  windings  of  the 
river,  the  journey  was  more  than  127  kilometres,  or 
Unexplored  approximately  69  miles.  From  the  Falls 
section.  of   the    Mai'ca    (Mark)    to    the    principal 

source  of  the  Pepiry  the  distance,  in  a  straight  line,  is 
Õ8  kilometres  or  31  miles,  but,  counting  the  bends  in 
the  river,  the  length  of  the  upper  course  that  was  not 
explored  is  116  kilometres  or  62  miles. 

The  Spanish  Diary  says,  under  date  of  õth  April, 
1759: 

"  The  foregoing  Diary  having  been  examined  by  the 

Commissioners  "  (that  of  the  Greographers  Pacheco  de 

Christo  and  F.  Millau),  and  the  Plans  presented  by 

..-,•*      the  Geographers  having  been  compared  and 

Impossibility  o      i  o  i 

of  continuing  both  fouud  to  be  iu  agreement,  the  former 
by  the  Pepiry.  considered  the  manner  iu  which  they  could 
examine  the  river  farther  up  than  had  already  been 
done ;  but  from  the  said  reports  and  from  the  Geog- 
raphers, they  thought  that  to  do  this  would  require  a 
greater  delay  than  was  justified  by  the  scarcity  of  the 
provisions  which  the  Indians  were  beginning  to  feel, 
because,  on  account  of  the  limited  space  on  their  rafts, 
they  had  not  been  able  to  bring  sufficient  quantities. 
Besides  this,  the  exploration  of  the  source  could  only 
be  carried  out  in  very  small  and  light  canoes,  of  which 
there  were  only  two  which  carried  so  few  men  that 
they  would  not  suffice  to  haul  them  over  the  Falls  and 
to  open  the  tracks  when,  the  river  not  being  navigable. 


BOUNDARY  QUEST/OX.  99 

it  should  be  indispensable  to  do  tins  work,  and  much 
less  if  any  AYild  Indians  should  attack  them  on  their 
march. 

"  In  view  of  these  embarrassments  and  difficulties, 
they  resolved,  in  conformitij  iritli  Art.  6  of  the  Spn-lnJ 
InMrvetions,  to  o;o  down  the  Urucijuay  and,  T^^  Commis- 

'  ■^  o       »/  '    sioners  deter- 

ascending   the    Iguaçu,  to   seek  the  river   mine  to  come 

1  •    -.        1         11  •  •    1       J 1         T-»       •    '      •  down  the 

which  should  unite  ^vith  tlie  repiri,  in  Uruguay, 
order  to  search  by  it  for  the  source  of  the  latter 
which  could  not  be  found  from  this  side  ;  And  to  go  up 
and  they  approved  this  part  of  the  De-  '^^  Iguaçu. 
marcation  made  by  the  Geographers  of  the  two 
Nations,  and  bv  virtue  thereof,  thev  recog-  ^^ 

^     .    .  ."  .  „   They  approve 

nized  as  appertaining  to  the  Dominions  of  the  Demarca- 
His  Catholic  Majesty  all  the  laud  lying  to      t'on  by  the 

•  ^  Pcoirv 

the  West  of  the  River  Pepiii,  and  to  those 
of  His  Most  Faithful   Majesty,  that  which  stretches  to 
the  East  of  the  same  River,  according  to  Art.  õ  of  the 
Treaty  of  Limits." 

The  quoted  Article  6  of  the  Special  Instructions  of 
the  27th  of  July,  1758,  fully  lustifies  the     ^^        .       . 

•^ '  .      .      "  .  .        The  action  of 

action    of    the    Commissioners,    since   it      the  Commis- 

provides  as  follows  :  sioners  justified. 

"  If  the  head  of  the  River  that  empties  itself  into  the 
Iguaçu,  and  which  is  believed  to  be  near  that  of  the 
Pepiri,  is  not  found,  or  if  the  distance  between  them 
is  so  great,  or  the  ground  so  rough  that  they  think 
the  canoes  cannot  be  conveyed  overland,  they  shall 
take  their  ohservatio7is  at  the  spot  they  are  ahle  to  reach, 
and  they  shall  return  daivn  the  course  of  the  Uruguay  as 
far  as  the  village  of  Concepcion,  or  as  that  of  San 
Xavier,  ^vhence  they  shall  pi'oceed  overland  to  that  of 
Candelária  and,  embarking  there,  they  shall  go  uj)  the 


lOO  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

course  of  tJic  Paraná  as  far  as  its  Salto  (Falls,) 
and,  carrying  overland  tlie  canoes  tliey  may  have  taken 
witli  tliem,  or  buildino-  others  there,  if  thev  cannot 
carry  them,  they  shall  go  up  the  latter  as  far  as  the 
viouth  of  some  River ^  that  may  be  with  a  slight  dijfer- 
euce  in  the  same  longitude  in  which  they  consider  the 
heads  of  the  Pepiri  to  be  ;  and,  navigating  along  it  as  far 
as  they  can,  they  shall  take  the  necessary  observations 
in  order  that  they  may  trace  upon  the  Map  they  are  to 
construct  a  line  connecting  the  ttvo  points  observed.'''' 

The  Commissioners  were  not  oldiged,  therefoi-e,  to 
survey  the  two  rivers  as  far  as  their  sources,  but 
they  used  all  possible  efforts  to  arrive  at  this  result. 

On  the  7th  day  of  Api'il,  the  Commissioners,  with 

the  bulk  of  the  Second  Party,  began  to  go  down  the 

Uruguay,    the    two    Astronomers    and    a 

Tourney  to  the  ^i  ,  •    •  j.    ^i  à.\        £ 

Paraná  Small  escort  remaining  at  the  mouth  oi 

the  Pepiry.  These  latter  only  joined  the 
Party  again  on  the  26th  of  May. 

On  the  loth  of  April  the  Commission  arrived  at  S. 
Xavier;  on  the  23d  at  Concepcion,  and  thence  it  went 
on  by  land  as  far  as  Candelária  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Paraná.  During  that  time  the  t\vo  Geographers  sur- 
veyed the  Uruguay  from  S.  Xavier  to  Concepcion. 

Then  from  Candelária  the  Commission  transferred 

itself  to   Corpus,   the  last  and    Northern- 
Corpus.  , 

most    settlement    of    the    Spanish    Jesuit 

Missions  on  the  Upper  Paraná. 

The  distance  from  that  point  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Pepiry,  in  a  straight  line,  is  approximately  169  kilo- 
metres, or  91.2  miles,  but  the  intermediate  territory 
was  never  occupied  Ijy  the  Jesuits  or  the  Spaniards, 
nor  did  the  Giiaranys  of  ]Misiones  ever  ventui-e  to 
enter  it. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  lOI 

The  necessary  preparations  having  been  made  at 
Corpus,  the  expedition  embarked  on  rafts  Departure 
and  canoes  and  began  to  ascend  the  Paraná.    ^''^"^  Corpus. 

After  a  journey  of  twenty-one  days  it  reached  the 
Iguaçu  on  the  10th  of  July,  17Õ9,  and  en-  Arrival*  at 
tered  that  river.  The  observations  taken  ^^^  Iguaçu, 
determined  the  hititude  of  the  mouth  at  25°  35'  51". 

On  the  12th  day  the  Commissioners  decided  to  en- 
camp below  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  near  a 
creek  of  which  the  Spanish  Diary  speaks  in  the 
following  terms : 

"  On  the  12th  at  a  distance  of  3-1-  leagues  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Iguazii  (Iguaçu),  and  a  little  more  than 
one  from  its  Falls  (Salto),  we  found  a  little  sandy 
creek  near  a  stream  presenting  a  very  high  fall,  which 
stream  empties  itself  on  the  Southern  side,  and  this 
place  being  less  inconvenient  for  mooring  the  boats, 
the  navigation  of  which  was  already  very  difficult  and 
perilous,  it  was  determined  to  build  a  camp  here  and 
there  to  take  the  necessary  measures  foi"  the  continua- 
tion of  the  voyage.     .     .    ." 

Having  explored  the  Great  Falls  and  seen  how  steep 
were  the  two  banks  of  the  Iguaçu,  they  set  about  over- 
coming the  obstacle  and  reaching  the  upper  qj.^^^  p^jjg  ^f 
level  of  the  river.  With  great  difficulty  the  Iguaçu, 
some  canoes  were  lifted  to  a  height  of  60  metres,  or 
203  English  feet  (31  Toises  and  2  ft.),  and  afterwards 
hauled  through  the  wood  for  a  space  of  6,59(3  metres, 
or  21,960  feet,  as  far  as  the  regular  current  of  the 
Iguaçu  above  its  Great  Falls,  called  Salto  de  Santa 
Maria  by  the  Bi'azilians  and  Salto  de  la  Victoria  by 
the  Argentines. 

As  all  these  details  are  to  appear  in  the  Spanish  In- 
structions of  1778,  it  is  expedient  to  go  on  recording 


102  BRAZlLIAiV-ARGENTINE 

tlieni  liere  for  the  better  understiindiug  of  tlie  Treaty 
of  1777  and  of  tlie  orders  then  issued  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Madrid. 

The  Spanish  Diary  says: 

"Besides  this  it  was  necessary,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  liaided,  to  open  in  the  wood  a  sufficiently  wide 
track,  v'utting  down  trees,  and  in  phices  levelling 
the  ground,  particularly  in  five  streams  they  had  to 
cross ;  all  this  was  done  successfully,  and  having  been 
carried  a  clistance  of  3,400  Toises,  they  were  all  placed 
on  the  waters  above  the  Falls  on  the  29th.  This  work 
having  been  completed,  the  building  of  the  new  canoes 
was  commenced." 

Above  the  Great  Falls  the  Commissioners  pitched  a 
second  camp  and  the  store  of  provisions. 

On  the  28tli  of  August  the  Portuguese  and  Span- 
^.  ,     ish  sfeoo-i'aphers,  Pacheco  de  Ciitíisto  and 

Discovery  of         ^      *-•      ~      '^  . 

the  rivers  of  S.    FrAXCISCO   MiLLAU  Weut  OUt    in    tWO  light 

Francisco  and    cauoes  to  make  the  first  exploration  of  the 

S.  Antonio.  -r  ^ 

Iguaçu. 

Tliirteen  days  afterwards  they  returned,  having  dis- 
covered two  affluents  to  which  they  gave  the  names  of 
Sao  Francisco  and  Santo  Anionio,  as  may  be  seen  from 
the  following  passage  of  the  Spanish  Diary : 

"The  officers  who  had  gone  up  the  Iguazii  (Iguaçu) 
returned  on  the  lUth  Se})tember,  after  a  navigation  of 
more  than  20  leagues  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  tlie  larger 
river  of  those  they  had  found  emptying  on  the  Southern 
side,  and  to  ivltich  tliey  gave  tlie  name  of  San  Antonio; 
a  little  below  they  had  left  another,  smaller,  which  they 
named  San  Francisco  ^  and  it  appearing  to  them  that 
the  San  Antonio  being  the  larger,  its  course  Avould  ex- 
tend farther  and  its  liead  waters  would  lie  more  to  the 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  IO3 

South,  they  eutered  it  and  explored  a  part  of  the  two 
branches  which  formed  a  fork  two  leagues  from  its 
mouth,  and  they  judged  from  the  direction  in  which  it 
runs  that  its  sources  could  not  be  far  distant  from  that 
of  the  Pepiri.     .     .     . 

"With  this  information  they  thought  to  start 
quickly  and  to  go  in  by  the  Eiver  S.  Antonio  as  far  as 
its  waters  would  allow  it  to  be  navigated,  ^jg  determined 
in  order  to  send  thence,  in  accordance  to  explore  the 
with  Article  3  of  the  Special  Instructions,  s.  Antonio, 
a  Party  with  the  Geographers  which  should  endeavor 
to  connect  the  line  of  demarcation,  exploring  the 
sources  of  this  river  and  of  the  Pepiri.  But  the  Span- 
ish Geographer,  who  already  knew  the  difficulties  of 
the  River  Iguazii"  (Iguaçu),  "seeing  that  if  the  larger 
canoes  went  (as  was  necessary)  laden  with  provisions 
for  many  men  ....  they  would  not  be  able  to 
hasten  the  journey,  proposed  to  go  forw^ard  in  light 
canoes,  which  would  make  the  speed  greater,  so  that 
when  the  Commissioners  with  the  rest  of  the  parties 
should  arrive,  they  might  have  advanced  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  interior  of  the  country. 

"  This  mode  of  proceeding  seemed  expedient,  as  it 
might  advance  the  desired  discovery,  and  instead  of 
awaiting  their  arrival  at  that  river  to  decide  on  the 
despatch  of  the  Party,  then  it  was  determined  that  the 
Geographers  of  the  two  Nations  should  go  out  from 
there,  and  that  going  up  the  said  river  S.  Antonio 
(whose  plan  after  survey  as  well  as  that  of  the  Iguazú 
they  were  to  make  jointly)  as  far  as  its  waters 
would  allow,  they  should  leave  the  canoes  at  the  place 
where  they  could  no  longer  navigate  it,  and  should 
order    tlie    necessaiy    track    to    be    made,    giving    the 


1 04  BRA  ZILJA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

pioneers  the  course  Avhicli  in  confonnit}-  with  tlieir 
maps  ought  most  directly  to  lead  to  the  Pepiri, 
Avhicli  they  should  endeavor  to  identify  by  finding  the 
mark  they  left  there  when  they  had  entered  it  by  its 
mouth  ;  or,  if  on  account  of  the  difficulties  of  the  way 
they  could  not  find  the  mark,  then  to  identify  the  river 
by  such  other  signs,  as  the  distance  that  they  had  gone, 
the  course  in  which  it  fiows,  its  confiixuration,  its 
waters,  the  character  of  its  banks,  and  the  other  things 
which  they  had  noticed  in  the  journey  fi'om  its  mouth 
to  the  mark ;  which  matters,  the  men  who  were  with 
the  Party  and  were  experts  in  mountains  and  rivers, 
knew  well  how  to  distinijuish." 

On  the  20th  of  September  the  two  Geographers  of 

Portugal  and  Spain  set  out  in  canoes  to  carry  out  these 

instructions,  but  nine  days  afterwards  the 

Survey  of  the  ,  ^  4.       xi       íí  ^  u 

S.  Antonio.  <>i'der  was  sent  to  the  lormer  to  return  im- 
mediately, because  the  first  Commissioners 
had  determined  to  advance  the  work  of  the  demai-ca- 
tion,  by  making  at  once  the  survey  of  the  Upper 
Paraná  as  far  as  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande)  or 
Salto  das  Sete  Quedas.  It  was  expedient  not  to  delay 
the  operation,  because  in  December  the  annual  flood- 
ins;  of  the  river  beçran. 

In  this  manner,  the  exploration  of  the  River  Santo 
Antonio  and  of  its  headwatei's  and  of  the  upper  course 
of  the  Pepiry  was  entrusted  solely  to  the  Spanish 
Geogi-apher,  Francisco  Millat'. 

This  officer  enteriuo-  the  S.  Antonio,  o-ave  the  name 

of  /S'.  Anfonio-Mini  to  the  Western  affluent,  which  he 

had    already    visited    in    part,    and    navi- 

S.  Antonio-Mini.  .         .        ,         . 

gated  by  the  prmcipal  river  as  far  as  the 
Falls  then  called  Salto  de  S.  Antonio,  now  Salto  Patri- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  105 

cio.  Thence  be  set  out  on  the  loth  of  October  travel- 
ling, in  the  direction  of  the  S.E.,  across  dense  forests, 
in  search  of  the  headwaters  of  the  Pepiry.  He  reached 
the  mountainous  region  in  which,  very  near  one  another, 
numerous  branches  of  the  affluents  of  the  Iguaçu,  the 
Paraná  and  the  Uruguay  take  their  origin,  and  on  the 
23d  of  November  he  began  to  go  down  one  which,  by 
the  direction  of  its  course  for  about  four  supposed  source 
leagues  and  by  other  signs  seemed  to  be  the  °^  ^"^^  Pepiry. 
Pepiry.  After  nearly  two  months  of  labor  and  pri- 
vations, and  threatened  by  the  wild  Indians,  he  wrote 
to  the  First  Commissioners  asking  for  succours  and  a 
reinforcement  of  soldiers  in  order  to  prosecute  the  ex- 
amination in  which  he  was  enç^aí^ed. 

Already  then  Alpoyji  and  Aegvedas,  having  re- 
turned from  the  Paraná,  \vere  encamped  near  the  S. 
Antonio  Falls. 

The  Diary  of  the  Demarcation  gives  a  detailed  ac- 
count of  the  conference  of  the  13th  of  December,  1759, 
in  which,  having  heard  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
other  officers  of  the  Party,  they  determined  to  suspend 
the  efforts  that  Millau  was  makino;  in  order  to  reach  the 
mark  left  on  the  Pepiry.  After  referring  to  the  sad 
circumstances  in  which  they  were,  to  the  necessity  of 
promptly  going  out  from  those  deserts  and  to  the  im- 
possibility of  sending  help  to  the  Spanish  Geographer, 
the  Diary  says: 

"  By  the  force  of  these  reasons  they  were  led  to 
decide  that,  instead  of  the  twelve  soldiers  who  could 
not  be  sent  to  him,  two  should  be  added  to  the  num- 
ber the  Geographer  had  with  him,  so  that  he  might 
go  up  and  explore  the  pi'incipal  soui'ce  of  that  river, 
which  was  unanimously  believed  to  be  the  Pepin',  and 


1 06  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

thence  seek  tlie  nearest  source,  which  was  supposed  to 
be  very  near  at  hand,  and  which,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  range  and  the  sources  he  had  passed, 
shouhi  go  to  the  very  river  concei-ning  which  they  did 
not  know  yet  whethei'  it  was  the  same  S.  Antonio  or 
another;  and  lie  ivcts  to  make  use  of  the  permission 
granted  hy  Article  6  of  the  Special  Instructions  ;  for 
if  the  latter  provides  that  corresponding  ohserva- 
tions  shall  he  tahen  at  the  point  that  can  he  reached 
of  a  river  the  month  of  which  may  lie,  within  a 
little,  in  the  same  longitude  in  which  the  main 
headwaters  of  the  Pepiri  may  he  supposed  to  he,  in 
order  to  draw  upon  the  Map  a  line  connecting  the 
two  points  ohserved,  if  the  distance  xoere  too  great,  or 
the  ground  too  rough  to  carry  the  canoes  over  it,  with 
much  greater  reason  must  it  be  done  in  this  case,  in 
which  thei'e  only  remains  5  or  6  leagues  to  be  sur- 
veyed, and  in  which  the  difficulties  already  referred 
to  still  occur." ' 

Having  received  these  orders  Millau  began  the  re- 
turn journey,  going  up  the  river  on  which  he  was  and 
Source  of  the  s.  whlch  he  supposed  to  be  the  Pepiry.  From 
Antonio.  ^^iQ  pHucipal  sourcc  of  that  river  he  went 

to  that  of  the  S.  Antonio,  distant  from  the  other  "  half 
a  quarter  of  a  league,"  or  694.5  metres  (about  the  third 
of  a  mile)  ;  he  came  down  by  the  S.  Antonio  and 
reached  the  camp  of  the  Commissioners  on  the  30th  of 
December. 

The  complete  survey  of  the  S.  Antonio  was  made, 
in  two  sepai-ate  sections,  by  the  same  Millau  and  by 
the  Portuguese  Geographer,  Pacheco  de  Cheisto, 

Convinced  that  the  river  whose  source  lay  nearest 

'  Spanish  Diary,  13th  day  of  December,  1759. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  IO7 

to  tliat  of  the  S.  Autouio  and  on  the  opposite  slope  of 
the   same   rano-e  was  tlie  Peinrv  they  had 

Declaration 

surveyed  from  the  Uruguay  to  tlie  Salto  da  signed  by  the 
Marca,  the   Commissioners   wrote  the  fol-  Commis- 

1         •  •       -1     •     -nk*  sioners. 

lowing  in  their  Diary  : 

"  In  the  manner  stated  it  was  possible  to  accomplish 
this  part  of  the  Demai'cation  with  such  effort  and 
labor  as  may  be  suj^posed  to  overcome  the  I'uerged- 
ness  of  some  towering,  impenetrable,  and  com- 
pletely unknown  mountains,  without  any  track  but 
that  which  the  arms  of  the  soldiers  opened  up,  with 
no  other  guide  than  the  compass.  .  .  .  The 
river  upon  which  we  were,  instead  of  fish  presented 
reefs  which,  delaying  the  advance  and  the  provisions, 
added  to  the  wi'etchedness  to  which,  without  ex- 
ception, we  wei-e  reduced  at  the  end  of  a  journey  of 
six  months  and  a  half  without  any  food  except  beans 
and  maize  and  without  being  able  to  count  on  anv  help 
except  the  very  remote  and  rare  assistance  the  vil- 
lage of  Corpus  could  afford. 

"  Notwithstanding  all  these  obstacles,  means  were 
found,  after  the  principal  source  of  the  Pepiri  had  been 
discovered,  of  surveying  also  the  principal  head  and 
following  all  the  course  of  the  nearest  river  flowing  to 
the  Iguaçu ;  to  wdiich,  as  has  been  stated,  the  name  of 
Rio  de  Santo  Antonio  w^as  given  (and  it  might  wdth 
propriety  have  been  named  the  'desired  river'  ),  and  the 
demarcation  having  been  made  along  it,  the  Divisional 
Line  was  connected,  and,  by  virtue  of  Article  õ  of  the 
Treat}',  all  the  territory  wliich  lies  to  the  East  and 
North  of  the  rivers  Pepiri,  Santo  Antonio,  and  Iguaçu 
was  recoo-nized  as  belonmno:  to  the  Dominions  of  His 
Most    Faitliful    Majesty ;    and,    as    ap[>ei-taining     to 


1  o8  BRA  ZIL  lA  X-A  RGEX  TINE 

those  of  Ilis  Catliolic  Majesty,  the  territory  extending 
to  the  West  and  South  of  the  said  rivers ;  and  in  wit- 
ness to  all  time  of  its  firmness  and  validity,  the  present 
was  signed  by  all,  at  this  encampment  of  the  rivei- 
Santo  Antonio,  on  the  3d  January,  1760." 

On  the  following  day  the  expedition  began  the  re- 
turn journey,  coming  down  the  Santo  Antonio,  the 
Iguaçu  and  the  Paraná  as  far  as  Candelária,  where  it 
disembarked.  Thence  it  went  on  by  land  to  Concep- 
ciou  and,  ci'ossing  the  Uruguay,  reached  S.  Nicolas. 
The  two  Geographei'S  then  made  the  survey  of  the 
Uruguay  from  Concepcion  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ibicuhy. 

The  Marquis  de  Val  de  Liiaos,  Principal  Commis- 
sioner and  Plenipotentiary  of  Spain,  charged  to  direct 
,     the  operations  of  the  three  Spanish  Parties 

Report  by  the       ,  .    ,  i       i        i  -7.  r^        '^^ 

Principal  wliicii  made  the  demarcation  trom  CastiUos 
Spanish  Com-  Grandes  to  Matto  Grosso,  said  the  follo^v- 
ing  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  D.  Ricakdo 
Wall,  in  a  letter  written  from  S.  Nicolas,  under  date 
of  20th  February,  1760: 

"  Although  this  demarcation  has  been  attended  with 
all  the  difficulties  presented  by  the  navigation  of  rivers 
so  important  as  are  the  Uruguay,  the  Paraguay,  and  the 
Iguazii  whose  great  i-eefs,  falls,  and  I'apids  make  their 
navigation  laborious  and  dangerous,  it  has  been  pos- 
sible, by  the  zeal  and  activity  of  Dox  Fkaxcisco  de 
Arguedas,  to  carry  it  out  almost  completely,  since 
there  has  only  remained  to  explore  in  the  whole  of  it 
the  sj)ace  of  five  leagues  of  the  liiver  Pepiri,  whose 
headwaters  were  connected  with  those  of  the  River  to 
Avhich  the  name  of  San  Antonio  was  given,  whose 
course  was  surveyed  like  the  Pepiri  with  the  exception 
of  this  small  distance. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  IO9 

"  The  ivhole  of  tills  ivork  mA  ivitli  no  opposition  ivhat- 
ever  on  tlie  part  of  the  Commissioner  of  Portugal,  wJio, 
suhmittirti/  to  the  direction  and  dispositions 

J}   j7       T7--      7     x>  •      '  />.        7     77     7     Condescension 

oj  the  Kings  Cominissioner,  sujjered  all  the  of  the  Portu- 
most  prolix  examinations  without  attempt-  g^^se  Com- 
ing  to  avoid  the  work  by  virtue  of  the  choice  '"'ssioner. 
which  our  Instructimis  offered  him^  and  so  tliis  woi-k 
was  happily  concluded,  and  they  returned  to  these  Set- 
tlements on  January  31." 

The  work  of  the  Second  Party  of  demarcation  ter- 
minated at  S.   Nicolas  with  the  signature,  on  the  8th 
of     April,    of    the    Map    constructed    by 
the    Geographers     rACHEco    de    Ciiristo 
and  Mill  AIT. 

The  Diary  concludes  thus  : 

"  According  to  the  course  pursued  by  the  other 
Parties,  the  Longitudes  were  not  marked  on  the  Maps 
for  want  of  corresponding  observations  in  known 
places,  and  the  said  ]\iaps  having  been  constructed  in 
the  manner  stated,  they,  as  well  as  the  copies  presciibed 
by  Article  the  Eleventh  of  this  Treaty,  and  the  Diary 
were  signed  by  the  Commissioners,  Astronomers,  and 
Geographers  of  the  two  Nations,  at  the  Village  of  Sam 
Nicolau,  April  8,  1760." 

Map  No.  12  A  is  a  fac-simile  of  the  one  appended  to 
the  Portuguese  Diary  of  the  demarcation.  It  has  the 
same  date  from  S.  Nicolas,  April  8,  1760,  and  the  sig- 
nature of  ]\lAxrEL  Pacheco  de  Ciiristo. 

This   document  shows  that   in    1760  the   demarca- 
tors  already  designated  the  old  Pepiry  by 
the  name  of  Pepirij-Guaru^  that  is  to  say,  Guacú" 

the   Great  Pepinj,  to  distinguish  it  from 
its  ti'ibutary  the  Pepirtj-Min't,  or  Small  Pr-piry. 


I  I  o  BRA  Z/L I A  X-A  RGEN  TINE 

111  fact,  wlienever   an  ailliient  has  the  same  naiiie  as 
the  ]M"incii)al    river,   accompanied    by    the 

The  adjectives  »•  A  ■*■  '>        ^ 

"guaçú-and     adjectíve    mini   or   mii-iin,    the    adjective 

'*  mirim."  ^  /-•  iiiji  r» 

guaeii  or  guazii  is  addea  to  the  name  ot 
the  river  of  which  it  is  a  tributary. 

That  is  why  the  Spaiiisli  Commissioners  of  the 
Second  Demarcation  often  gave  to  the  Uruguay  the 
name  of  Uruguay-Guazii.  At  that  time  the  affluent 
now  called  Rio  do  Passo  Fundo  ^vas  known  as  the 
Uruguay-Mirim. 

The  Ibicuhy,  although  generally  designated  by  this 
single  name,  is  also  called  Ibicuhy-Guaçíi,  because  it 
has  as  tributaries  an  Ibicuhy-Mirim  on  the  North  and 
another  on  the  South, 

In  the  Spanish  Instructions  of  1778  another  exam- 
ple is  found  in  the  river  Ipané,  sometimes  designated 
by  this  name,  sometimes  by  that  of  Ipané-Guazú,  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  affluent  Ipané-Miuí. 

The  official  Map  of  17G0  is  a  document  of  the 
greatest  importance  in  this  controversy,  because  the 
supporters  of  the  Argentine  cause  have  asserted  that 
in  using  the  adjective  (/uaçú,  it  was  intended  in  the 
Treaty  of  1777  to  designate  a  different  river  from  the 
one  surveyed  in  1759. 

As  these  questions  of  names  have  caused  much  con- 
fusion, it  is  necessary  to  establish  at  once  the  fact  that 
„   .    ^     .      t\ieoliJ  P(' pi  I'll  or  Pea  uir  II  q,íí\\\qAyo\\\  17  (i(), 

Pepiry-Guacu  -l         •'  1  .'  ^  ' 

orPequiry.  to  be  callcd  P epi I'H'Guaca^  but  that  it  also 
preserved  the  old  name  of  Pequiry  in  some  Spanish 
maps. 

With  the  name  of  Pepinj-Guagii  it  appears  in  the 
Map  of  1760,  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  first  de- 
mai-cation  (No.  12  A)  ;  in  that  of  Sylveira  Peixoto,  of 

'  Note,  page  3  in  this  Vol. 


BO UNDA RY   QUES TION.  I  I  I 

1768  (No.  15  A)  ;  in  that  of  Captaiu  Moxtaxiia,  of 
1773  (No.  16  A)  ;  and  in  that  of  Olmedilla,  of 
1775  (No.  17  A),  this  being  the  Map  used  by  the  Span- 
ish negotiator  of  the  Treaty  of  1777  in  the  discussion 
with  the  Portuguese  Plenipotentiary. 

Under  the  old  name  of  Pequiry  it  fio-ures  in  two 
Maps  constructed  in  1768  and  1770  by  the  same 
MiLLAU  who  explored  it  in  1759  (Nos.  13  A  and 
14  A). 

YI. 

Now  is  the  time  to   examine   this   fii'st  demarcation 
of  1759  and  the  errors  that  hav^e  been  attributed  to  it. 
The  first  fault,  accordinsr  to  the  Arsren-    ,- 

.         .    ^  o  Examination 

tme  (government,  consists  m  the  Portuguese  of  the  Argen- 
and  Spanish  Commissioners  havino-  demar-  tine  aiiega- 
cated  a  false  Pepiry,  in  disregard  of  the  '°"\he^fi"st 
instructions  and  of  the  Map  of  the  Pleni-  demarcation, 
potentiaries,  dated  1749,  which  had  been  given  them 
for  their  guidance.  The  second,  in  the  same  Com- 
missioners having  left  their  work  incomplete,  inasmuch 
as  they  did  not  go  up  as  far  as  the  sources  of  the 
river  indicated  by  the  Indian  Arirapy.  The  third 
in  their  having  made  a  mistake  in  giving  as  the  head- 
waters of  the  Pepiry  those  of  another  river  which  flows 
to  the  Paraná. 

The  first  supposed  defect  Mill  be  examined  further 
on,  because  the  consideration  of  this  point  requires  a 
greater  development.  The  t^vo  other  affirmations  of  the 
Argentine  Government  are  rigoj'ously  accurate  as  to  the 
questions  of  fact,  but  the  consequences  which  it  at- 
tempts to  deduce  from  those  two  facts  have  no  founda- 
tion whatever  in  view  of  the  instructions  given  to  the 
demarcatiuo;  Commissioners. 


112  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

The  Ai'gentiue  Goveniiiieiit  was  not  acquainted  with 
tbe  Instructions  of  1758  which  only  now  appear  in  tliis 
conti-oversy.  It  referred  to  them,  giving  credit  to  the 
quotations  made  by  the  Spanish  Commissioners  who 
worked  in  the  demai'cation  subsequent  to  the  Treaty  of 
1777.  With  the  appearance  of  the  Instructions  of  1758 
it  cannot  fail  to  acknowledge  that  the  Commissioners 
of  the  second  demarcation  were  unjust  towards  their 
predecessors,  going  so  far  as  to  invent  Instructions  and 
orders  that  never  existed. 

The  surveys  made  in  1887  by  the  Brazilian-Argentine 
Joint  Commission,  appointed  under  the  Treaty  of 
.  .    ^,    28th  September,    1885,   made   evident   an 

An  error  in  the  _    ^  ; 

demarcation,    error    in  the  demarcation  of  1759,  but  an 
but  of  no  error  which  could   in   no  wise  invalidate 

importance.  ,  .  .     , .  ,       . 

that  operation  or  prejudice  the  interests  of 
the  two  countries. 

As  may  be  seen  in  the  Map  of  the  Joint  Commission 
of  1887  (No.  25  A),  the  distance  between  tlie  principal 
headwaters  of  the  S.  Antonio  and  of  the  Pepiry  or 
Pepiry-Guaçú  is  17,400  metres  (9.4  miles)  and  not  694 
metres  (about  a  third  of  a  mile).  Therefore,  it  is  be- 
yond doubt  that  the  Spanish  Geographer  Millau  was 
not  in  1759  at  the  headwatei's  of  the  Pepiry,  nor  did  he 
explore,  as  he  supposed,  12  miles  of  its  upper  course. 
The  I'iver  on  which  he  was,  and  whose  sources  are  near 
those  of  the  S.  Antonio,  is  one  of  the  branches  of  the 
Uruguahy,  an  affluent  of  the  Paraná.^ 

In  consequence  of  that  mistake,  the  Commissioners 
of  1  759  believed  that  they  had  surveyed  nearly  all  the 
Extent  sur-  course  of  the  Pepiry,  excepting  merely  a 
veyedini759.  section  of    18  miles  (5  to  6  leagues,  they 

'  Map  No.  29  A,  division  C  lO. 


BOUNDAR  V  QUESIION.  1 13 

said)  between  tbe  Falls  called  Salto  da  Marca'  and  the 
point  which  Millau  reached,  starting  irom  the  sup- 
posed headwater  of  the  river.  In  fact  they  only  sur- 
veyed, as  is  known  to-day,  the  course  of  the  S.  Antonio 
— that  is,  131.5  kilometres,  or  70.98  miles, — and  that 
of  the  Pepiry,  from  its  mouth  in  the  Uruguay,  as  far 
as  the  Salto  da  Marca,  over  an  extent  of  127  kilometres, 
or  about  69  miles. 

The  total  extension  of  the  boundary  line  surveyed 
was,  therefore,  258.5  kiloraeti'es,  or  140  miles. 

All  the  upper  course  of  the  Pepiry,  from  the  Salto 
da  Marca  to  the  principal  headwater,  i-emained  unex- 
plored', and  it  has  already  been  said  that  this  section 
counting  the  windings  of  the  river,  is  116  kilometres 
or  62  miles. 

But  the  Instructions  did  not  make  the  complete 
survey  of  the  t^vo  rivers  and  their  sources  The  survey  of 
indispensable  and  obligatory.  Foreseeing  the  source  of 
the  great  difficulties  there  would  be  in  that     ^    ^^^^  '" 

^         .  ,       .  .         1759  was  not 

exploration,  the  two  Principal  Commis-  indispensable, 
sioners  and  Plenipotentiai'ies  of  Portugal  and  Spain, 
with  the  previous  and  entire  approval  of  The  essential 
their     respective     Governments,    decided       ^"g  was  to 

i  ^  ^  '  survey  the 

that  the  essential  thing  was  to  survey  the  mouth  of  the 
moutÍLS  of  the  tivo  rivers  and  to  qo  i(p  them      P^P^'y  ^"d 

.  -^  .,,  y        r  that  of  the 

as  far  as  possibte.  affluent  of  the 

The  Principal   Commissioner  of   Spain,  Iguaçu, 

the  Marquis  de  Val  de  Likios,  in  a  letter  dated  Feb- 
ruary 20th,  1760,  addressed  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
D.  RicAEDO  Wall,  referred  as  follows  to  the  proposal 
he  had  made  in  1757  and  which  had  been  approved : 
"  I  have  already  informed  Your  Excellency  in  a  letter 

'  Ibidem,  division  C  lO. 
8 


114  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

of  December  12, 1757,  tliat  the  Principal  Coinmissiouer 
of  Portugal,  in  consideration  of  these  ditticulties,  has 
proposed  to  me  that  only  the  7nouths  of  the  rivers  lohich 
flow  into  the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguazk,  or  Rio  Grande 
de  Curitiba,  should  be  sought  and  their  situation  de- 
termined, because  he  believed  it  impossible  to  travel 
through  the  inland  country  in  which  they  run,  and  that 
their  headwaters  should  be  connected.  I  agreed  to  this 
proposal  as  it  afforded  the  opportunity  for  all  to  ai  rive 
at  the  conclusion  of  this  matter," 

The  decision  arrived  at  by  the  two  Governments  to 
have  a  survey  made  only  of  the  mouth  and  of  the 
principal  part  of  the  two  Huvial  courses,  whicli,  in 
a  desert  region  diflScnlt  of  access,  formed  a  secondary 
and  a  relatively  unimportant  section  of  the  exten- 
sive divisional  line,  was  no  doubt  very  prudent  and 
well  advised.  It  was  so  well  advised  that  without 
having  any  knowledge  of  it,  and  writing  many  years 
afterwards,  the  Spanish  Commissioner  Oyarvide, 
taught  by  the  experience  of  hard  Avork  and  privations 
in  those  same  regions,  was  of  opinion  that  much  less 
should  be  done  than  was  accomplished  in  1759. 

In  his  Memoria  on  the  second  demarcation  he  says ' : 
"  For  these  powerful  reasons,  and  for  the  better 
execution  of  this  matter,  we  may  conclude  by  saying 
that  whatever  may  he  the  divisional  line  that  may 
divide  in  this  region  the  territory  of  Sixain  from  that  of 
Portugal,  it  is  quite  suflicient  to  survey  and  marh  the 
confluence  of  the  rivers  along  which  it  is  to  2y(iss,  awl  to 
suppose  the  line  as  effective  and  recognized  in  the  spaces 
or  intervening  places  where  there  may  be  mountains  and 
hilly  and  uncultivated  parts  of  the  country,  as  happens 

'  OyArvide,  in  Calvo,  Recuei  I  de  Traitt's,Vo\.  IX.,  p.  172. 


BO UNDAR  Y  Q UESTION.  1 1 5 

in  tlie  loliole  dUtance  or  space  over  which  tie  line 
is  to  run  from  the  Uruguay  to  th.e  Iguazk.  If  from 
this  previous  suggestion  it  should  result  that  such 
enterprises  may  never  be  repeated,  because  future 
Treaties  of  limits  shall  have  removed  the  necessity  for 
them,  we  would  from  this  moment  congratulate  our- 
selves, not  only  because  it  must  shorten  the  surveys 
without  detriment  to  their  accuracy,  but  because  it 
will  be  a  manifest  benefit  to  humanity." 

The  object  in  view  in  1759  was  that  the  mouth  of 
the  affluent  of  the  Iquaçú  should  he  toithin 

7  -..f    -7  7.7  7       IT»       .        T'he  affluent  of 

a  little  m  the  same  longitude  as  the  Jrepiry.  the  iguaçú  was 
If  the  Commissioners  met  with  difficulties  tobeapproxi- 
in  reaching  the  headwaters  of  the  two  jj^^- ^^j Jj^°JJ  Jj^^ 
rivers,  they  were  according  to  Article  6  Pepiry.  The 
of  the  Instructions  of  27th  July,  1758,  to       s.  Antonio 

.         *^  satisfies  this 

trace  upon  the  Map  an  imagmary  line,  con-  condition, 
necting  the  two  points  observed. 

To  leave  unexploi'ed  the  upper  course  of  both  rivers 
and  their  headwaters  was,  therefore,  a  case  foreseen 
and  authorized  by  the  Instructions  and  it  cannot  be 
pleaded  as  a  reason  of  nullity.  If  the  Commissioners, 
avoiding  trouble  and  work,  had  limited  themselves  to 
tracing  upon  the  Map  they  constructed  an  imaginary 
line  from  the  Salto  (Falls)  de  S.  Antonio,  now  Salto 
Patricio,  to  the  Salto  da  Marca,  on  the  Pepiry,  that  is 
to  say,  if  the  unexplored  tract  were  almost  double 
what  it  was,  they  would  have  accomplished  the  pro: 
visions  of  Ai'ticle  6  without  laying  themselves  open  to 
the  reproach  of  any  error  whatever.  The  demarcation 
which  would  have  been  perfectly  valid  in  the  case  of 
an  extent  of  241  kilometres  (131  miles)  of  the  frontier 
having  remained  unexplored,  cannot  be  considered  in- 


I  1 6  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

validated  by  the  fact  that  this  distance  was  reduced  to 
one  half.  Suppressing  the  12  miles  of  the  river  which 
were  taken  for  the  Upper  Pepiry,  there  remain  as  the 
extreme  points  of  the  survey  of  1759  the  Salto  da  Marca, 
in  the  Pepiry,  and  the  principal  headwater  of  the  S. 
Antonio  in  the  same  mountainous  region  in  which  the 
Pepiry  takes  its  origin. 

The  line  traced  between  these  two  points  scarcely 
departs  at  all  from  the  course  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  and  even  cuts  it  in  several  places. 

The  principal  source  of  the  Pe[)iry-Guaçii  is  in  53° 
37'   34"  of  Longitude   West  of  Greenwich,   and  the 
mouth  of  the  S.  Antonio  in  53°  57'  50". 
The  difference  is  20'  16". 

The  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçu  was  located  by  the 
Brazilian  Commission  in  longitude  53°  48'  19".  This, 
compared  with  that  of  the  confluence  of  the  S.  Antonio, 
gives  a  difference  of  only  9'  31". 

These  comparisons  and  an  examination  of  the  Map 
of  the  territory  now  disputed  ^  show  clearly  that  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Second  Pai'ty  of  Demarcation  in 
1759  exactly  carried  out  the  orders  they  had  received, 
since  the  S.  Antonio  is  indisputably  the  river  which 
forms  with  the  Pepiry  the  most  natural  line  directed 
to  the  North  that  the  two  Governments  desired  to 
establish  between  the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu. 

And  it  has  already  been  demonstrated,  by  a  docu- 
ment of  February  8,  1749,  that  this  purpose,  so  ex- 
pressly manifested  in  the  Instructions  of  1758,  was  that 
which  inspired  the  two  Governments  in  drawing  up 
Article  5  of  the  Treaty  of  1750. 

It  is  true  that  Article  5  speaks  of  the  connection  of 

'  Maps  Nos.  25  A  and  29  A. 


BO  UNDAR  V  Q  VEST  ION.  I  I  / 

the  principal  headwaters  of  the  Pepiry  with  that  of 
the  nearest  rivei-  running  to  the  Iguaçu ;  but  the  pro- 
vision must  be  understood  in  accordance  with  the 
thought  manifested  in  1749  and  I7õ8,  keeping  also  in 
view  Article  31  of  the  Treaty  of  January  17,  1751,  in 
which  this  declaration  occurs  : 

"That  the  Commissioners  shall  avoid  contentions 
regarding  the  demarcation,  especially  on  matters  of  little 
importance,  and  that  they  should  rather  settle  at  once 
among  themselves  any  differences  that  may  arise,  be- 
cause it  is  not  the  intention  of  Their  Majesties  that 
any  part  of  the  work  shall  be  left  incomplete  without 
very  weighty  reasons,  nor  siiall  the  Commissioners  take 
into  consideration  any  small  portion  of  territory^  pro- 
vided the  Line  is  located  hy  the  most  visible  and  lasting 
natural  Bo  undariesr 

Those  who  arcane  from  the  literal  sense  of  Article  õ 
of  the  Treaty  of  1750  must  take  into  consideration  that 
this  provision  of  the  Treaty  of  1751  and  the  Instruc- 
tions of  1758  have  reduced  to  nothiuij;  the  sio-nificance 
of  the  direction  regarding  the  proximity  of  the  head- 
waters. 

Some  claim  that  if  the  Commissioners  of  1759  had 
ascended  the  Pepiry  as  far  as  the  sources  of  its  prin- 
cipal arm,  they  would  not  have  demarcated  the  S. 
Antonio,  but  the  river  which  in  foi'iner  maps  bore  the 
name  of  Rio  da  America,  and  which  in  that  of  the  Bra- 
zilian Commission  of  1887  appears  under  the  name  of 
Capanema/ 

It  has  already  been  proved  that  the  two  essential 
points  in  the  demarcation  of  that  part  of  tlie  boundaiy 
were  the   mouths  of  the  two  affluents  and  not  their 

'  ViRASORO,  Misiones y  Arbitrajc  (Buenos-Aires,  1S92),  p.  132  (i?  VII.). 


IlS  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

headwatei's.  But,  adinitting  tluit  they  were  these,  no 
one  in  view  of  the  Map  of  tlie  Brazilian- Argentine 
Commission  can  safely  affirm  that  the  principal  head- 
water of  the  America  is  nearer  that  of  the  Pepiry- 
Giiayii  than  the  headwater  of  the  S.  Antonio. 

The  course  of  the  America  across  dense  forests  was 
never  regularly  explored  and  does  not  appear  on  the 
Map  of  the  Joint  Commission.  If  only  the  lower 
courses  of  the  Chopim  and  Chapecó  were  known,  no 
one  could  foresee  that  their  headwaters  were  under 
meridians  so  distant  to  the  East  from  those  of  the 
mouth.  It  is  possible  that  the  America  may  run  in 
the  same  direction  as  the  Chopim,  and  in  that  case  the 
source  of  its  principal  arm  would  be  very  distant  from 
that  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú.  Notwithstanding,  accepting 
as  a  positive  fact  the  su[>position  or  suspicion  that 
the  principal  headwaters  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçu  and  the 
America  are  very  near  one  another,  the  loss  to  Spain 
— resultiuo:  from  the  orders  and  instructions  which  it 
gave  to  its  Commissioners,  and  not  from  any  error  com- 
mitted by  them — was  truly  insignificant,  seeing  that 
the  approximate  area  of  the  triangle,  whose  angles  are 
the  principal  headwater  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  the 
mouths  of  the  S.  Antonio  and  America,  is  only  47 
square  leagues — a  very  trifling  wedge  of  land,  indeed, 
for  Sovereigns  who  possessed  such  vast  dominions  and 
could  calmly  dictate  to  their  Commissioners  the  oi'der 
contained  in  the  quoted  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  1751. 

But,  as  has  been  said,  the  chief  error  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  1759,  accordins;  to  the  Arg-en- 

Another  .        r^  •         i         i  • 

Argentine  tiue  Government,  was  in  the  demarcation 
allegation :—  of  a  false  Pe[)iry,  which  did  not  pi-esent 
c  ara    en        ^^^^  characteristic  features  described  in  the 

leatures  oi 

the  Pepiry.       lustructious,    uor    coiTcspoud     with     the 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I  I9 

position  indicated  in  the  Map  of  the  Plenipotentiaries, 
commonly  called  "  Map  of  the  Courts"  ("  Mappa  das 
Cortes,  or  "  Mapa  de  las  Cortes  "). 

The  Argentine  Government  asserts  that  the  true 
Pepiry  or  Pequiry  of  the  Treaty  of  1750  is  the  river 
more  to  the  East,  discovered  in  1788,  that  is  to  say,  the 
Chapecó  or  Pequiii-Guazii. 

The  characteristic  features  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry 
of  17Õ0,  according  to  a  passage,  already  quoted,  at- 
tributed to  the  Instructions  liiven  to  the  Commission- 
ers  of  17Õ9,  were  : 

"  A  full-jiowlng  river  (caudaloso)  with  a  wooded 
island  opposite  its  mouth :  a  reef  within  its  mouth, 
and  that  it  is  upstream  of  the  Uruguay-puitar 

That  is  the  passage,  as  it  was  quoted  in  1805  by  the 
renowned  D.  Felix  de  Azaea,^  who  had  the  credulity 
to  accept  as  true  the  invention  of  1789,  whose  history 
has  already  been  given. 

After  the  composition  of  1805,  by  which  Azaea  was 
deceived,  there  is  the  last,  that  of  1892,  which  is  as 
follows : 

^^  A  full-flmving  river  with  a  wooded  island  in  front 
of  its  mouthy  a  large  reef  in  front  of  its  mouth  which  is 
upstream  of  the  Uruguay-p>itâ,  a  southern  affluent  of 
the  Uruguay.'''' 

Ev^eu  though  such  a  passage  had  been  in  the  In- 
structions of  17Õ1  and  1758,  it  would  prove  nothing 
against  the  demarcation  of  1759  and  the  right  of  Brazil. 

To  be  full  flowing  (caudaloso)  is  not  a  distinctive 
feature  of  any  particular  river,  as  x\zaka  a  fuii  flowing 
himself  very  truly  said  in   1785,  in   the  ""*'"• 

following  terms : 

'  Memoria  sobre  el  Tratado  de  Limites  de  la  America  Meridional,  dated 
Madrid,  May  14th,  1805,  among  the  Memorias  .  .  .  de  D.  Felix  DE 
Azara,  Madrid,  1847. 


I20  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

"I  do  not  consider  this  reason  as  powerful  as  it  ap- 
pears, because  the  word  caudaloso  is  very  general  and 
in  its  strict  sense  expresses  nothing,  since  every  river  is 
caudaloso.''''  ' 

The  Pepiry  or  Pepiry-Guaçú  also  has  an  island  op- 
An  island  in  front  P^site  its  niouth/     It  is  niuch  smaller  than 

tie  p'eTy'''  ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  Chapccó  or  Pequiry-GuazLi,  but 
it  is  an  ishxnd,  according  to  the  scientific 
definition,  notwithstanding  the  endeavor  of  the  Argen- 
tine Commissioners  who,  in  1887,  wished  to  reduce  it 
to  a  bank,  preoccupied  with  the  idea  of  the  Instruc- 
tions composed  in  1789.  The  circumvStance  that  it  is 
submerged  during  the  freshets  of  the  Uruguay  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  take  from  it  its  normal  quality  of  an  island, 
since  the  accidents  presented  by  the  bed  of  a  river  and 
its  banks  are  always  referred  to  the  average  level  of  the 
waters  and  not  to  the  occasions  when,  overflowing  those 
banks,  they  cover  the  least  elevated  islands  and  invade 
the  adjacent  lands.  No  hydrographer  would  graphi- 
cally represent  the  course  of  a  I'iver  according  to  the 
appearance  it  presented  during  an  inundation.^ 

'  Letter  of  the  Spanish  Commissioner  D.  Felix  de  Azara  written  at  Asun- 
cion of  Paraguay,  on  February  7,  17815,  and  transcribed  in  Calvo,  Reciieil  de 
Trailés,  Vol.    VI.,  p.  387.     Azara  spoke  of  lhe  rivers   Iguatemy  and  Igurey. 

*  Plan  No.  27  A  in  Vol.  VI.,  and  No.  28  in  Vol.  V. 

*  In  the  pamphlet  Misiones,  by  Dr.  Zeballos  (Buenos-Aires,  1893),  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  read  at  page  51  in  a  letter  of  Colonel  Rhode  : 

"  It  is  true,  that  when  the  Plan  of  the  mouth  was  constnicted,  the  Brazilian 
Commission  wished  to  give  the  name  of  island  to  the  bank,  but  it  is  also  a  fact 
that  the  Argentine  Commission  protested  and  that  the  Plan  signed  by  us  all, 
Brazilians  and  Argentines,  and  lodged  in  our  Foreign  Office,  calls  bank  that 
which  is  a  hank." 

The  question  of  bank  or  island  has  no  importance  whatever,  because  the 
presentation  of  the  Instructions  of  1751  and  1758  to  the  Arbitrator  will  show 
that  these  documents  speak  neither  of  island  nor  bank,  as  the  Argentine  Com- 
missioners believed  in  the  discussion  of  1887. 

In  the  meantime,   it  is  necessary  to  say,  that  the   Brazilian  Commission  gave 


BOUNDARY    QUESTION.  121 

The  feature  of  an  island,  attributed   to  the  Instruc- 
tions of  1751  and  1758,  was  invented  in  1789  because 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Chapecó  there  is  one 
and  iu  the  "  Map  issued  by  the  Courts"  of     Motive  for  the 

invention  of  the 

1^4:9,  it  seems  uidisputable,  to  any  one  island  in  lysg. 
who  has  no  knowledge  of  geographical  and 
cartographical  history,  that  there  is  also  an  island  near 
the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry,  afterwards  Pepiry- 
Guaçú.  But  the  island  of  the  Chapecó,  in  the  Uru- 
guay, is  in  fact  above  tlie  moutlt  of  the  Chapecó^  ow\^  a 
small  part  of  the  island  being  in  front  of  the  mouth  ;  ^ 
and  the  supposed  island  in  the  Map  of  the 

i  1-  1-  The  supposed 

Plenipotentiaries  is  helow  the  mouth  of  tlie       island  in  the 

7",        .  7->  •  /}      1        m  I  Map  of  1749  is  the 

±*epiry  or  l^equiry  of  the  Ireaty  of  1760,  Great paiis  of 
and  at  a  distance  of  10  kilometres  or  5^  ^  ruguay. 
miles.^  The  comparison  of  that  Map  of  1749  with  the 
previous  ones  and  an  examination  of  the  print  in  which 
are  reproduced  parts  of  various  maps  of  the  XVIIIth 
century  representing  the  Falls  of  the  Paraná,  Uruguay, 

the  name  of  island  to  that  which  the  Spanish  Commissioners  of  1759  and  the 
Spanish  Instructions  of  1778  called  an  island,  and  that  in  the  two  Plans  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú,  which  are  in  the  keeping  of  the  Brazilian  Special 
Mission,  the  following  is  to  be  read  : 

"  An  island  of  stones  and  boulders  covered  with  sarandy-trees,  submerged  in 
freshets." 

One  of  the  Plans  dated  from  the  Pepiry-Guaçu  July  4th,  1887,  has  the 
signatures  of  the  Brazilian  Commissioners  and  Assistant  Commissioners, 
and  those  of  the  following  Argentines :  Commissioners  Seelstraxg  and 
ViRASORO  ;  Assistants  Rhode  and  Picasso.  Another  is  signed  by  the  First 
Brazilian  Commissioner  and  by  the  First  Argentine  Commissioner,  General 
Garmen'dia. 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  Argentines  had  renounced  the  opinion  that 
the  island  is  a  bank,  but  simply  that  they  authenticated  the  Plans  of  the  Bra- 
zilians, as  the  latter  authenticated  those  of  the  Argentines.  The  two  opinions 
were  recorded  in  the  Diary. 

'  Plan  of  the  mouth  of  the  Chapecó,  No.  28  A  in  Vol.  VI. 

*  No.  7  A  (Vol.  VI.),  fac-simile  of  the  size  of  the  original  ;  No.  10  (Vol.  V.), 
fac-simile  enlarged  by  photography. 


I  2 2  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

I  vail y,  and  Iguaçu/  show  that  the  sup[)ose(l  isLiud  l)ehiw 
the  mouth  of  tlie  Pepiiy  is  the  indication  of  the 
Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande)  of  the  Uruguay.  The 
cartogi-aphers  of  that  time  represented  cataracts  by  a 
widening  of  the  i-iver,  neai'ly  always  placing  an  island 
in  the  centre. 

The  other  features  indicative  of  the  Pequiry  of  1750, 
in  the  imaginary  passage  of  the  Instructions,  have  ref- 
erence to  a  reef  and  to  the  relative  posi- 
withourthe" ""^  tions  of  the  Pepiry  and  the  Uruguay-Pita, 
mouth  of  the       ^pijjy   jj^gj.  point  will  be   examined  at  the 

Pepiry.  -i- 

same  time  as  the  Map  of  1749.  As  to  the 
reef  near  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry,  what  Alvear  said 
in  1789  was  that  it  lay  "  loitlmi  its  moffth,''''  and  not 
"  opposite  its  mouth,"  as  Cabker  wrote  inadvertently, 
when  copying  the  letter  of  November  13,  1789,  of  that 
Commissioner,  and  as  was  repeated  by  mistake  in 
1892.~  It  did  not  suit  Alvear  to  say  that  the  Pepiiy 
of  the  Treaty  of  1750  should  have  a  reef  in  fi-ont  of  its 
mouth,  since  the  river  surveyed  in  1759  presents  this 
feature,  which  the  Chapecó  has  not,  as  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission  ascertained.  The  reef  of 
the  Chapecó  is  within  the  river  and  does  not  answer 
the  description  of  1892.'  The  Pepiry,  surveyed  in  1759, 
however,  can  satisfy  the  two  different  wordings  of  the 
passage  attributed  to  the  Instructions,  because  it  has  a 
reef  hoth  wifhm  and  tvitliout  its  tnoutli.  The  outer  reef 
is  evident  in  the  Plan  drawn  after  the  survey  by  the 

'  Print  No.  27  in  Vol.  V. 

'The  Brazilian  Special  Mission  has  a  copy  of  the  quoted  letter  of  Alv'K.\r, 
authenticated  by  the  Portuguese  Commissioner  Roscio,  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed. 

^  Speaking  of  the  Chapecó  the  Diary  of  the  Argentine  Commission  says 
(August  19,  1887):  "...  no  reef  whatever  being  seen  between  the  mouth 
and  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Uruguay  and  only  at  800  metres  above  its  mouth." 


BOUNDARY    QUESTION.  I  23 

Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission  ;  the  one  within, 
at  3  kilometres  of  the  mouth  according  to  the  Field 
Books  of  the  Commissioners,  is  mentioned  in  the  Diary 
of  the  Spanish  demarcators  of  1759  where  the  follow- 
ing may  be  read  under  date  of  March  5,  1759  : 
"...  and  knowinoj  from  other  information  that 
the  Pepiri  had  a  reef  near  its  mouth,  the  Commissioners 
and  the  Astronomer  of  Portugal  went  to  explore  it, 
and  it  was  found  at  half  a  league  from  thereP  And  at 
the  date  of  March  14th,  when  the  Party  commissioned 
to  survey  the  Pepiry  commenced  to  ascend  the  river : 
"  At  one  o'clock  in  the  day  the  party  left  the  mouth 
of  the  Pepiri,  navigating  in  canoes  as  far  as  the  place 
from  which,  as  they  could  not  advance,  the  overland 
track  was  to  begin,  and  with  the  Party  the  Commis- 
sioners and  Astronomers  went  as  far  as  the  same  place. 
The  navigation  was  beo-un  towards  the  N.N.W., 
whence  the  river  continues  its  course  to\vards  the  W. 
N.W.,  and  turning  by  the  intermediate  directions  to 
the  N.N.E.,  it  narrows  a  little ;  and  at  half  a  league 
from  its  mouth  the  first  reef  is  reached,  when  the  canoes 
were  able  to  pass  with  less  difficulty,  although  they  had 
to  be  hauled  on  account  of  the  waters  it  had  received 
from  the  repeated  rains  of  the  previous  days." 

The  only  new^s  the  Commissioners  of  1759   _,       ,   ^ 

''  ....       The  only  true 

had  upon  the  Pepiry,  as  is  seen  in   their      information 
Diary,  were  those  resrardins;  the  reef  and  to    *^®  Commis- 

^         n.  ,  7  7  I'll        sioners  of  I7S9 

the  eiiect  that  on  the  same  day  on  whivk  they    had  concem- 
should  start  from  the    Great  Falls    of  tlie  i"&  the 

Uruguay  they  ivere  to  reach  the  mouth  of  epiry. 

the  Pepiry. 

Now,    on   the  same   day   on  which  one  leaves    the 
Great  Falls,  ascending  the  Uruguay,  it  is  easy  to  reach 


1 24  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  RGKN  TINE 


Distance  from  the 
Pepiry  to  th 
Great  Falls. 


tlie  mouth  of  the  Pepiiy  or  Pepiíy-Guaçú 
Pepiry  to  the        which  is  oulv  (lístíiiit  íVoíii  it  8,890  iiietres 

or  \\  miles,  hut  thei-e  is  no  craft  that  can 
ill  less  than  a  week  overcome  the  current  of  the  Uru- 
,    liuay  and  the  difficulties  wliich  are  met  in 

Distance  from  the   • 

chapecótothe      the   149.0  kiloiuctres  or  80.7   miles,  that 
separate  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Chapecó,  the  Pequiri-Guazii  of 
the  Argentine  pretension. 


VII. 


It  has  been  sufficiently  shown  that  the  features  im- 
agined in  1789  could  equally  be  found  in  the  Pepiry 
Examination  s"i*veyed  in  1759  and  in  the  Chapecó,  ex- 
of  maps  ante-  eept  the  poiut  relating  to  the  Uruguay- 
o  1749.  p-^-  which  cau  only  be  discussed  while 
stnd3'ing  the  Map  of  1749. 

The  Argentine  Government  drew  its  arguments 
from  the  Instructions  given  to  the  Commissioners  and 
from  the  Map  of  1749. 

The  Instructions  do  not  contain  the  passage  which 
has  been  quoted,  nor  would  this  passage  prove  any- 
thing against  the  demarcation  of  1759. 

One  of  the  two  points  in  support  of  the  Argentine 
line  of  argument  therefore  disappears. 
A  declaration       '^'^^   other   document   upon    which    the 
oftheArgen-    Argentine   Government  endeavors  to  rest 
tine  Govern-     |^  ^^^  o^á2\  Map  of  1749,   used  by  the 

ment.  .  ...  . 

Pleni])otentiaries  in  the  drawing  up  of  the 
first  Treaty  of  Limits. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I  25 

The  Argentine  Memorandum  of  1883  said  : 
"  If  it  is  possible  to  determine  which  were  the  boun- 
daries traced  upon  that  Map,  ilie  question  will  he  iin- 
fliGÍtlij  and  author  iiatively  solved^ 

It  is  possiVjle  and  even  easy  to  prove  that  the  Com- 
missioners of  1759  surveyed  the  same  Pequiry  along 
which,  in  the  Map  of  the  Plenipotentiaries,  the  divi- 
sional line  runs,  and  that  the  river  of  the  Argentine 
pretension  is  much  to  the  East  of  the  Pequiry  or  Pe- 
piry  of  the  same  Map, 

But,  in  order  to  understand  the  reason  of  the  differ- 
ence  between  the  "positions  of  the  mouth  of  the  Urngaay- 
Pitci,  lohich  was  located  in  1759  above  (lie  Great  Falls 
of  the  Uruguay  and  shown  below  the  same  Falls  in  the 
Map  of  1749,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  in  the  carto- 
graphical documents  and  in  the  records  of  the  XVIth 
and  XVIIth  centuries  the  acquaintance  then  possessed 
with  regard  to  the  Upper  Uruguay  and  its  affluents. 

The  first  document  in  which  mention  is  made  of  a 
tributary  of  the  Uruguay  under  the  name  of  Pepiry  is 
La  Argentina,  a  chronicle  of  the  Provinces  ^j^^  Pepiry, 
of  the  River  Plate,  written  by  the  Para-  1612. 

guayan  Rui  Diaz  de   Guz3ian,  and    con- 
cluded at  Charcas  in  the  year  1612. 

Above  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Negro,  Guzman  only 
mentions  the  said  tributary,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to 
know  in  what  section  of  the  Uruguay  the  confluence 
was.  He  says  that  it  was  then  reported  that  thei'e  was 
gold  in  the  Pepiry,  an  inexact  statement  made  by  some 
Indian  because,  as  Father  Pedeo  Lozano  wrote  in 
174Õ,  tlie  Spaniards  never  saw  the  Pepiry. 

The  first  map  in  which  an  affluent  of  the  I'ight  bank 
of  the  Uruguay  appears  under  that  name,  is  that  which 


126  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

the  Jesuits  of  Paraí^uav  i)reseiitecl  to  Fa- 

The  Caraffa  o       »'     i 

Map.  The  tliei'  Caraffa,  Prefect  General  of  the  So- 
first  one  pre-  ^.jety  of  Jesus  from  1G4Õ  to  1649/  It 
p^epinf  ^^''^'^  engraved   at  Amsterdam   by  Gerard 

CoKCK  for  Vol.  XI.  of  the  Afl</s  Major  of 
JoiiAN  Blaeuw,  publislied  at  Amsterdam  in  the  year 
1662. 

It  is  very  valuable  and  the  best  of  the  ma[)s  of  the 
Jesuits  for  the  study  of  tlie  liistory  of  the  Missions  in 
the  XVIIth  century  and  for  the  understanding  of  the 
texts  of  DuuAN,  MoNTOYA,  Techo,  and  other  Jesuits, 
and  very  interesting  from  the  abundance  of  geogra[)hi- 
cal  information  which  it  presents  for  the  first  time, 
showing  all  the  great  features  of  a  good  part  of  the 
interior  of  South  America,  Humboldt  said  very  truly, 
speaking  especially  of  America  in  tlie  XVIIth  and 
XVIIIth  centuries  :  '^  .  .  .  The  Missionaries  were 
then  the  only  geographers  of  the  most  inland  parts 
of  continents."  ^ 

The  map  must  have  been  drawn  between  the  years 
1637  and  1641  because  it  was  during  that  time  that 
the  mission  of  Assumpcion,  I'emoved  from  Acaraguá 
(Acarana),  was  near  the  Mbororé. 

In  a  work   recently  published   Dr.  Zeballos^  has 

'  The  part  of  this  Map  in  which  the  territory  now  contested  is  to  be  found  is 
reproduced  under  No.  i  in  Vol.  V.  ;  and  in  VI.,  under  No.  i  A,  is  a  fac-simile 
of  the  whole  map  whose  title  is  : 

"  Par  aquaria/  vu/go  /  Paraguay  /  Cum  adjacentibus.  j  Adm.  R'^?  Nrõ.  / 
•/*.  ViCENTIO  CaRRAFA  /  Prceposito  Grali.  Soc'.'^  ^esn.  /  Gerard  Coeck 
sctilpsil.  loannes  Blaeu  Exc.  Amsteladami." 

*  Vol.  III.,  p.  430  of  Personal  Narrative  of  Travels  to  the  Equinoctial  Re- 
gions of  America  during  the  Years  lygg-iSoj  .  .  .  Written  <^j  ALEXAN- 
DER VON  Humboldt,  translated  by  T.  Ross,  London,  1853,  3  vols. 

^  Misiones,  E\posicion  hccha  por  el  ex-Ministro  de  Relaciones  Exteriores  de  la 
Republica  Argentina,  Dr.  Estanislao  S.  Zeballos,  para  refutar  errores  de 
origen  brasilero  é  ilustrar  la  opinion  publica  en  Sur  y  en  Norte  America,  Buenos- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  12/ 

seenied  to  give  the  impression  that  this  document,  de- 
servedly praised  by  d'Anville,  is  favorable  to  the 
Argentine  cause.  The  document,  however,  reveals 
the  strongest  evidence  that  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay 
had  until  then  only  very  vague  information  I'egai'ding 
the  Upper  Uruguay,  since  the  Great  Falls  do  not  yet 
appeal',  a  feature  which  no  explorer  would  omit,  and 
which  must  necessarily  have  struck  the  most  uncivil- 
ized and  ignorant  Indian  of  the  Missions  who  might 
pass  that  way. 

The  first  meridian  is  not  shown  in  the  Maj),  but  on 
comparison  of  this  with  that  of  Brazil  in  the  same 
Atlas,  it  is  seen  that  the  Dutch  cai'tographer  referied 
the  longitudes  to  the  mei-idian  of  Recife  de  Pernam- 
buco, which  was  still  occupied  by  the  Dutch  between 
the  years  1645  to  1649,  and  where  there  was  at 
Mauritzstadt,  an  Observatory  founded  by  Prixce 
Maurice  of  Nassau.  The  publication  of  Vol.  XI.  in 
1662  does  not  prove  that  all  the  maps  were  engraved 
in  that  year. 

The  first  meridian  being  thus  known,  and  referring 
to  that  of  Greenwich  the  Longitudes  marked  on  the 
Map,  it  is  seen  that  the  Pepiiy  is  much  to  the  West  of 
the  Pepiry-Guaçú,  the  boundaiy  of  Brazil,  and,  there- 
fore, in  the  actual  Argentine  territory  of  Misiones. 

But  in  a  discussion  of  this  kind — and  in  any  discus- 
sion— affirmations  which  have  nota  sound  basis  should 
be  avoided,  and,  therefore,  on  the  pai't  of  Brazil  it  will 
only  be  said  that  the  Map  under  consideration  cannot 
benefit  either  one  cause  or  the  other. 

Aires,  1893.  (Translation: — "Misiones,  Staieinent  made  by  Ex-Minister  for 
Foreign  A  fairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  Dr.  Estanislao  S.  Zeballos,  in 
refutation  of  errors  of  Brazilian  origin  and  to  enlighten  public  opinion  in 
South  and  North  America.") 


1 28  BRAZIL/A  N-ARGENTINE 

The  course  of  the  Upper  Uruguay  is  represented 
too  much  to  the  North,  and  known  points  of  refer- 
ence are  not  found  in  it  to  make  an  a[)pi'oximate 
location  of  the  Pepiry  possible.  The  location  of  the 
Iguaçu  and  of  all  the  other  rivers  shows  that  there  had 
been  no  exploration  worthy  of  the  name,  and  that  all 
the  topographical  accidents  were  traced  almost  wholly 
on  supposition  and  based  on  information  obtained  from 
Indians  who  were  necessarily  inaccnrate  as  to  distances 
and  directions.  As  to  Longitudes,  the  very  position  of 
the  continent  being  still  uncertain  in  the  XVIIth 
century,  it  is  clear  that  no  argument  can  be  deduced 
from  meridians  traced  by  a  mere  estimate. 

After  this  comes  the  second  Map  of  the  Jesuits, — 
that  of  1722. 

The  Map  of  G.  Sanson  (1668),  which  has  been 
cited,^  can  be  considered  a  Map  of  the  Jesuits  only  in 
the  particular  that  it  is  a  i-eproduction  of 
j^^g  '  their  first  Map  with  omissions,  with  names 
incorrectly  written,  and  with  some  not  very 
felicitous  changes,  such  as  the  exaggerated  widening  of 
the  continent ;  but  if  there  were  any  reason  foi*  at- 
tributing to  that  Religious  Order  the  Map  of  a 
geographer  who  was  inspired  by  theirs,  it  would  then 
be  necessary  to  quote  many  other  maps  which  are  in 
the  same  case,  as,  for  example,  that  of  Coronelli  in 
which  the  Pepiri  of  the  Jesuits  is  seen  transfoi-med 
into  Papiri,  as  Sanson  also  wrote  by  mistake. 

It  must  also  be  said — with  due  respect  to  the  con- 
trary oi)inion — that  the  Ma[)  of  Paraguay  by  GuiL- 
Dei'isie,  LAu:\rE  DE  lTsle,  Composed  in   1703,^  and 

1703-  considered    by    Dr.   Zeballos    "  the    first 

'  Le  /  Paraguay  /  Tire  des   Relations  ks  plus  Recentes  /  Par  G.  Sanson, 
Geographe  ordinaire  du  Roy.  /  Paris,  1668." 
*  "Carte  /  du  Paraguay  /  mxs  Chili  /  du  Detroit  de  Magellan,  àfc,  / 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1 29 

Map  ill  importance  and  authority,"  ^  is  not  a  Map  of 
the  Jesuits,  but  of  that  geographer. 

De  l'Isle  asserts  that  he  did  his  work  accordino;  to 
the  desci'iptions  of  Fathers  Nicolas  del  Techo  (Nico- 
las Du  Toict)  and  Alonso  de  Ovalle,  but  it  cannot 
be  inferred  from  this  that  these  two  Jesuits  personally 
gave  him  information  for  the  drawing  of  the  Map,^  for 
Ovalle  died  in  1651,  and  De  l'Isle  was  five  vears  old 
when  Techo  died  in  1680.  In  the  Map  of  the  former 
of  these  Jesuits  the  French  geographer  could  find  very 
little,  and  that  only  upon  Chile ;  in  the  Historia  Pro- 
vincm  PavaqiiaricB^  of  the  latter,  there  is  no  Map 
whatever.  De  l'Isle  did  not  read  with  attention  the 
work  of  Techo,  since  he  represents,  as  still  existinçf, 
missions  whose  destruction  or  desertion,  between  the 


Dressée  sur  les  Descriptions  /  des  P.  P.  A  Ifonse  d'  Ovalle  et  N^icolas  Techo,  /  et 
sur  les  Relations  et Memoiresde  Brower,  N'arbourottg,  Mr.  de Beauchesne,  ar'c.,/ 
par  GuiLLAUME  DE  l'Isle  Geographe  /  de  V Academic  Royale  des  Sciences  /  A 
Paris.     .     .     .      1703." 

D.  Andres  Lamas  said  in  the  introduction  to  the  Hist,  de  la  Conquista  del 
Paraguay  by  LozANO  that  the  copy  in  his  collection  has  between  the  water- 
marks the  shield  of  the  Society  of  Jesus.  There  may  have  been  a  mistake  in  the 
interpretation,  because  other  copies  examined,  and  one  in  the  possession  of  the 
Brazilian  Special  Mission,  also  has  water-marks,  but  not  the  sign  of  the  Society 
of  Jesus.  In  any  case,  the  mark,  if  it  exists,  can  only  mean  that  some  special 
impression  was  made  for  the  Jesuits,  since  the  Map  is  indisputably  the  work  of 
the  geographer  De  l'Isle  ;  it  resulted  from  the  ill-digested  reading  of  the 
documents  he  quotes  ;  it  does  not  contain  the  declaration  that  it  was  constructed 
by  order  of  the  Jesuits  ;  and  it  became  an  article  of  trade,  seeing  that  it  was  on 
sale  at  the  house  of  the  author,  on  the  Quai  de  I'Horloge,  in  Paris. 

'"  .  .  .  the  Mi'r</ known  Map  of  the  Jesuits  .  .  .;  but  the  first  in 
importance  and  SLulhonty     .     .     ."     {J/isiones,  §  XXI.,  p.  66.) 

*  "  Two  of  the  most  notable  figures  of  the  Jesuitic  legion  in  South  America, 
Fathers  D.    Alonso  de  Ov.\lle,   a  scholar  and  writer     ....     and  D. 
Nicolas  Techo     ....     gave  the  data  for  the  drawing  of   this   Map." 
(Dr.  Zeballos,  Alisiones,  §  XXI.,  p.  64.) 
9 


1 30  BRA  7JLIAN-A  RGEN  TINE 

yejii's  UuiO  and  l()íi8,  the  lattei-  historian  desci-ibes 
with  the  greatest  clearness,  and  whicli  liad  already 
a[)peared  in  the  first  Map  of  the  Jesuits  Nvith  a  sign 
indieatinir  that  the\'  had  been  destroyed  or  evacuated/ 
The  mission  of  Assumpcion,  removed  in  1687  from  the 
Acaraguíí  or  Acarana  to  the  M bororó,  was  re-installed 
by  De  L'Isle  on  the  first  of  those  rivers  in  spite  of 
Teciio's  Ilistorid  and  of  tlie  iii'st  Map  of  tlie  Jesuits. 
Two  villages  of  the  itinerary  of  Cabeza  de  Vaca, 
located  with  more  accuracy  near  the  Tibagy  in  previous 
maps,'  are  much  more  to  the  South  in  this  Map. 

The   passage  quoted  in  the  pamphlet  J\i/sio?ies'^  for 
the  purpose  oi    showiuix    that    d'Axyille 

D'Anville  did  •        i       i  •        p'   i       ai 

not  praise  the  recoguizetl  tlie  merit  01  tlie  Map  ot  1  703, 
Map  of  De        ij^g   uo  I'eference   whatever    to    this    Map 

I'Isle.  ,      1^         ,T 

or  to  1)e  l  Isle. 
This  is  what  d'Anville  Avi'ote  ' : 
"  In   composing  the  Map  of  Pai'aguay  I  have   made 
use  of  several  maps  given  by  the  Rev.  Jesuit  Fathers, 

'  No.  2,  in  Vol.  v.,  is  an  enlarged  fac-simile  of  a  section  of  the  Paraguay  of 
De  l'Isle.  On  comparing  it  with  No.  i,  it  is  seen  that  the  Missions  destroyed 
or  deserted,  according  to  Techo,  and  represented  in  N'?  i  by  a  cross,  are 
re-established,  as  existing  settlements,  by  De  l'Isle.  In  the  first  Map  of  the 
Jesuits  (No.  I  A,  Vol.  VI.)  it  may  be  read  before  this  sign,  in  the  Notttlarum 
explicatio  :    "  Rediict.  itidor.  CliristianoiTi    PP.  S''f  lesii  dcstrttctic." 

■  For  example,  in  that  of  G.  Blaeuw,  No.  32,  in  Vol.  V. 

^  In  the  pamphlet  Misioitcs,  p.  71  : 

"  D'Anville  says,  in  the  place  quoted,  in  commenting  on  the  Map  of  Retz 
and  his  own,  referring  to  the  Map  of  lyo^  ami  to  its  previous  sources,  what  fol- 
lows ..."  Next  comes  the  end  of  the  passage  transcribed  above, 
of  D'Anville,  from  the  words  :  "  This  first  Map     . 

Having  made  the  transcription.  Dr.  Zeballo?  says  :  "  Having  thus  recog- 
nized the  singular  merit  of  the  Map  of  ijoj  and  of  those  -which  served  as  a  basis 
for  it,  superior  to  the  suòset/iient  ones  of  1^20  and  17 J2  .  .  ."  (Misiones, 
§XXI.,p.  71.) 

*  Observations  Geographii/ues  sur  la  Carte  du  Paraguay  par  l' A  uteur  de  cette 
Carte,  in  Vol.  XXI.,  p.  429,  of  the  Lettres  Édifiantes  et  Ctirieuses  écrites  des 
Missions  Etrangeres,  par  queltjues  Aiissio)inaires  de  la  Compagnie  de  fesus, 
1734. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I3I 

Missionaries  in  that  countiy.  In  1727,  the  Fathers 
presented  a  large  Map  of  Paraguay  to  the  R.  F. 
General  Michelangelo  Tamburini.  This  same  Map, 
renovated,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  however,  by  changes  in 
several  places,  has  been  presented  to  the  R.  P.  General 
Francesco  Retz,  in  1732.  An  old  Map  of  Paraguay 
was  already  known,  dedicated  to  the  R.  P.  Vincenzo 
Cakaffa,  who  Avas  the  seventh  General  of  the  Society 
from  the  year  1645  to  the  year  1649.  This  first  Map, 
which  must  yield  to  the  more  recent  maps  for  the 
location  of  inhabited  places,  which  are  subject  to  change, 
has  seemed,  in  compensation,  to  preserve  an  advantage 
over  those  maps,  with  regard  to  a  greater  abundance 
and  accuracy  in  the  details,  excepting  only  the  neigh- 
l)oi-hood  of  the  town  of  Assumption." 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  only  maps  d'Axville 
quotes  are  those  which  the  Jesuits  presented  to 
Caraffa  (164Õ-1649),  Tamburini  (1722),  and  Retz 
(1732),  and,  therefore,  the  ''•more  recent  maps''''  of 
which  he  speaks  in  conti-adistinction  to  the  '' fii'st 
map"  are  those  of  1722  and  1732,  of  the  Jesuits,  and 
not  that  of  1703,  of  De  lTsle. 

Far  from  praising  the  last  named  map,  u'Axville 
corrects  it,  and,  in  a  note  written  on  the  Carte  dn 
Paraguay,  of  1733,  he  points  out  an  error  of  De 
l'Isle,  regarding  the  exaggerated  width  of  the  conti- 
nent, althouííh  he  does  not  state  the  name  of  this 
seoíxraidier. 

Dr.    Zeballos   says,    speaking    of    the      ^^   ,, 

J    ^       i-  »  The  Map  of 

Map  of   1703  :  De  I'Isle  in  no 

"The  disputed  territory  is  only  sketched  way  favors  the 
in    this    Map;    but   it   already    gives   two  "^^cause^ 

rivers,  tlie  Peqidryor  Pep'try  Guazú,  that  of 


132  BKAZILIAA'-ARGENTINE 

tlu  Argentines  and  that  of  tilt  Brazilians  .  .  .  Those 
rivers  have  heen  indicated  withmut  names!''' 

The  conjparison  of  the  first  Map  of  the  Jesuits  (No. 
1,  Vol.  v.),  with  that  of  De  l'Isle  (No.  2)  shows  tliat 
the  two  rivers  without  names  to  the  East  of  the 
Acaraííuá  or  Acarana  are  the  Guanumbaca  and  the 
Pepiíí  of  the  former. 

Now,  the  Guanumbaca  never  was  the  Pepiry  of  the 
Brazilians,  for  it  is  a  river  in  the  present  Argentine 
territory  of  Misiones  \  and  the  Pepiiy  of  the  Maps  of 
the  Jesuits  was  neither  the  Pequiry  Guazú  of  the 
Argentines  (Chapecó),  nor  the  Pepiry-Guaçii  of  the 
Brazilians,  but,  as  will  be  proved,  a  river  helow  the 
Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay. 

The  Map  of  De  l'Isle  was  sent  from  Buenos- Aires 
to  the  Argentine  Special  Mission  at  Washington,  ac- 
cording to  published  infoi-mation.^  That  Map,  how- 
ever, does  not  serve  to  prove  anything,  because  it  is 
not  possible  to  point  out  in  it  the  rivers  of  the  con- 
ti'oversy,  and  because  the  line  indicating  the  Western 
boundary  of  Brazil  in  that  region  is  drawn  arbitrarily. 
It  is  not  a  line  defined  by  any  Treaty,  nor  is  it  that 
of  the  uti  possidetis  of  that  time.  Spain  did  not  admit 
such  a  line,  nor  did  Portugal.  And,  lastly,  in  arguing 
from  the  limit  of  Brazil  improvised  by  De  l'Isle,  that 
line  must  also  be  accepted  Avhich  he  traces  on  the  side 
of  the  Andes  and  of  the  Tei'ra  Mai^ellanica,  «"ivinfi  to 
Chile  the  present  Argentine  Province  of  Mendoza,  the 
Government  of  Nauquen  and  the  whole  of  Patagonia. 

After  the  Map  of  De  l'Isle,  without  doubt  very 


'  Division  F  9,  in  Map  29  A. 
'  Dr.  Zeballos,  Misiones,  p.  64. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1 33 

inferior  to  the  first  of  the  Jesuits,  the  only  one  that 
deserves  mention,  on  account  of  the  official  title  of  the 
author,  is  that  of  Chili  and  Paraguay,  by  n.  de  Fer, 
Nicolas   de    Fer,    "  Geographer    to    His  ^720. 

Catholic  Majesty."  This  Map,  which  was  puV^lished  in 
1720,^  thoroughly  reveals  the  want  of  information  of 
the  Geographer  to  the  King  of  Spain  i-egarding  the 
course  and  affluents  of  the  Upper  Uruguay.  The  last 
affluent  it  gives  is  the  Acaraguá. 

The  learned  Walckenaek  mentions^  a  Map  of  Para- 
guay by  d'Anville,  drawn  in  1721  for  the  Lettres 
Édijiantes,  but  he  was  probably  mistaken  in  wi-iting 
that  date  instead  of  1733,  for  no  copy  of  1721  is  to 
be  found  among  the  known  editions  of  the  collection 
in  question,  either  at  the  Fi^ench  Foreign  Office,  or  in 
the  iSTational  Library  of  Paris,  where  all  the  printed 
documents  and  manuscripts  left  by  the  great  Geog- 
rapher are  to  be  found. 

So,  then,  observing  chronological  order,  the  next 
Ma[)  to  be  mentioned  is  the  second  of  the  -pj^g  Second 
Jesuits,  dated  1722,  engraved  at  Rome  by  Mapofthe  jes- 
Petroschi  in  the  year  1726,  and  dedicated     "'^^  °^  ^^'^' 

■^  '  guay,  1722. 

to  the  General  Prefect  Ta:\iburixi.^ 

'"  Parti E  /  LA  Puis  Méridionale  de  l'Amerique  ou  se  trouve  /  Le 
Chili /le  Paraguay  /  .  .  .  par'iH.  deFer,  Geographe  de  sa  Majeslé  Catholiqtte." 

2  Notice  sur  Don  Felix  de  Azara  par  Walckenaer,  in  Vol.  I.,  p.  xxii.,  of 
Azara,   Voyages  dans  VAmérique  Aleridioimk  (Paris,  i83g). 

^  A  reduced  fac-simile  of  the  whole  map  is  in  Vol.  VI.,  under  No.  2  A. 
Another,  of  the  essential  section  of  the  Map,  and  on  the  same  scale  as  the 
original,  is  No.  3  in  Vol.  V. 

The  reproduction  was  made  from  the  copy  that  belonged  to  d'Anville, 
preserved  in  the  Geographical  Depot  of  the  French  Foreign  Office.  The 
Brazilian  Special  Mission  can  also  produce  a  copy  belonging  to  the  carto- 
graphical collection  of  the  Brazilian  Foreign  Office. 

Title  and  dedication  :  "  Paraqvaki.e  Provinclí  Soc.  Jesi:  Cvm  Aoj.a.- 
CENTiB^    Novíssima   Descriptio   /   Post  iierala^  percgrinaiioins,    c-"  plures 


134  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

111  this  Map  iip[)eur  for  the  first  time  in  the  Upper 
Uniuuiiy  the  Great  Falls  and  the  rivers  Urvgvay-Pitâ 
and  Uruguay-Mini,  affluents  of  the  left  bank,  besides 
other  unnamed  tributaries. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  first  Map  in  which  the  positions 
of  the  Pepiry  and  of  the  Uruguay-Pita  can  be  examined, 
because  in  it  is  seen  the  Salto  Grautle  (Great  Falls),  a 
safe  and  indisputable  point  of  reference.  It  is  easy  to 
get  confused  as  to  rivers  and  to  transfer  the  name  of 
one  to  others ;  but  títere  is  only  one  Salto  Grande  (Great 
Falls)  Í7i  all  the  Upper  Urur/uay. 

None  of  the  maps  printed  after  this  and  before  tlie 
Ti'eaty  of  1750  contains  any  new  information  on  the 
course  of  the  Uruguay  and  the  names  oi"  the  positions 
of  its  affluents. 

In  1730,  a  second  edition  of  the  Map  of  172i^'  was 
Seutter,  1730.    published  at  Augsburg  by  Seutter. 

In  1732,  Petroschi  engi-aved  at  Rome  the  third  Map 
sent  from  Paraguay  by  the  Jesuits  of  that  Province, 
The  third  Map  '^^^  presented  by  them  to  Father  F.  Retz, 
of  the  Jesuits  General  Prefect  of  the  Society.'  Although 
of  Paraguay.  •^.  ^^..^^  written  iu  1892  that  this  Map  was 
made  at  Rome  by  Father  Retz,  the  dedication  which 

observationes  Pairum  Missionariorum  eiusdcin  Soc.  turn  huius  Provincicc,  cum 
&=  Feruancr  accuratissime  delineata  Anno  i-j22.  /  Admodum  R.  in  Chto. 
Patri  Suo  /  P.  Michaeli  Angelo  Tamburino  /  Soc.  Jesu  Pr>ep.  Ge- 
NERALI  XIV.  /  Hanc  Terrarum  Filiorum  Suorttm  /  siidore,  et  sanguine  exculia- 
ruin  et  rigatarum  tabulam  /  D.  D.  D.  /  Provinda  Paraquaricc  Soc.  Jesu  /  Anno 
77^6.  /  Joannes  Petroschi  Sculp.  Romse  Sup.   perm.      Ann.  1726." 

1  "  PARAQi'ARi.i:  ProvincI/E  /  Soc.  Iesu  /  CUM  Adjacentibus  Novissima 
Descriptio  /  .   .   .  delin  \  à  I  Matthceo  Seuttero,  S.  C.  M.  G.  August." 

*  "  Paraqvari/e  Provinci.«  Soc.  Jesv  cum  Adiacentib!  Novíssima 
Descriptio  /  Post  iter  atas  peregrinationes,  àf  plures  observationes  Patrum  Mis- 
sionariorum eiusdcm  Soc,  turn  huius  Provinda;,  cum  «Sr"  Peruana  accuratissime 
delineata,  ò'  emendata.  Ann.  1732.  .  .  loannes  Petroschi  Sculp.  Romae 
Sup.  perm.     Anno  1732." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  135 

is  inscribed  on  the  document  itself  renKn'es  the  con- 
fusion. 

In  1733,  d'Anville,  in  view  of  the  two  Maps 
engraved  by  J.  Petrosciii  (1722  and  1732)  and  of  that 
previously  engraved  by  G.  Coeck  (XVIIth  D'Anviiie, 
centuiy),    that   is,    in   view    of    the    three  ^733- 

Maps  sent  and  dedicated   to   three  different   General 
Pi-efects  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  at  Rome  Inj  tlie  Jesuits 
of  the  Province  of  Paraguay,  composed  his  Carte  du 
Paraguay,   appended    to   Vol.   XXL    of   the    Lettres 
Êdijiantes  et  Curieuses  écrites  des  Missions  Etrangeres, 
par  quelgues  Missionnaires  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus,^ 
Father  Dr  Halde,  the  editor  of  the  Letters,  says  in 
the  Preface :    "  In    order   to    satisfy    you    completely 
regarding  these  Missions,  I  have  thought  it  my  duty, 
Reverend  Fathers,  to  give  yoii  an  accurate  Map  of  that 
vast  tract  of  land,  over  which  they  are  scattered :  M. 
Danville,  Geographer  in  ordinary  to   the  King,  has 
drawn  it  expressly  with  very  great  care,  from  various 
Maps,   and,  among   others,  from  a  quite    recent    one, 
given  hy  the  Missionaries  of  Paraguay  tJiemselves.    You 
will  find  at  the   end   of  the   Report  which  has  come 
from  Spain,  an  address  in  Avhich   the  Author  of  this 
Map  makes  a  sort  of  analysis  of  it,  in  order  that  you 
may  judge  foi'  yourselves  how  accurately  it  has  l)een 
worked  out." 

Indeed,  in  the  same  volume  of  the  Zettres  Êdif  antes, 
from  page  429  to  -lOõ,  "  Geographical  Bemarls  upon 
the  Map  of  Paraguay  by  the  Author  of  that  Map  "  are 
f  ou  n  (L 

1  "  Le  Paraguay  jou  les  A' A'.  PP.  de  la  Co»tpa!:;nic  cic-  Jesus  /  ont  répandu 
leurs  Missions  I  par  le  S'.  v' Anville  /  Geograp/te  du  Poi  /  Octohre   I733-" 

There  is  a  Spanish  edition  of  this  Map  in  the  translation  of  the  Edify- 
ing LeUers,  Madná,  1757,  Carias  E:diJicatiíes,\'o\.   XVI. 


136  BRAZILIAh'-ARCENTINE 

^.^     .,,        „      III    1748  the  Mai)  of  South  America  l^y 

D  Anville,i748.      ,  ^   .  -' 

d'Anville  was  })ul)li.'<lie(l/ 

These  are  the  ouly  maps  published  between  the 
years  1722  and  1750  in  which  are  seen,  in  the  Uru- 
guay, the  Great  Falls,  the  Pepiry,  the  Ui'uguay-Pita 
or  PuitO,  and  tlie  Uruguay-Mini. 

This  Statement  is  accompanied  by  fac-similes  of  all 
the  maps  (pioted. 

In  Vol.  VI.  are  tlie  following  full  reproductions  : 

No.  2  A  :  Map  of  1722  of  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay, 
enij-raved  in  1726  at  Rome. 

No.  3  A\  The  same  Map,  engraved  in  1730  at 
Augsburg. 

No.  4  A :  New  Map  of  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay, 
engraved  at  Rome  in  the  year  1732. 

No.  5  A:  Map  of  Paraguay  by  d'Anville,  of  1733, 
appended  to  Vt)l.  XXI.  of  the  Lettres  Êdiflantes  of 
the  Jesuits. 

No.  6  A :  One  of  the  sheets  of  South  America  by 
d'Axyille,  of  1748. 

In  Vol.  V.  of  this  Statement  are  fac-similes  of  the 
sections  of  those  maps  in  ^^hicll  the  teri-itory  of  the 
l^resent  controversy  is  represented.  Besides  the  two  of 
d'Ax^'ille  rpioted,  another  manuscript  Map  of  the  same 
author,  which  is  preserved  in  the  Geographical  Depot 
of  the  French  Foi'eign  Office,  is  reproduced. 

It  is  in  the  reproductions  of  Vol.  V.  that  this  question 

'  "  AmÉRIQUE  /  MÉRID10NALE  /  PUBLIÉE  SOUS  LES  AUSPICES  /  DE  MON- 
SEIGNEUR  LE  DUC  D'ORLEANS  /  PREMIER  PRINCE  DU  SaNG  /  PAR  LE  Si 
d'Anville  /  MDCCXLVlli.  /  Avec  Privilege.  I  A  Paris  j  Chez  I'Auteur,  aux 
Galeries  du  Louvre." 

There  is  a  London  edition,  1775,  of  this  Map,  and  another  of  Venice,  1779. 

The  part  of  Paraguay  and  adjacent  territories  was  reproduced  in  1760  under 
this  title  : — "  Le  Paraguay  /  tire  de  la  Carte  de  VAmerique  Mcridionale  de 
M.  d'Anville." 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  ^37 

of  limits  can  best  be  studied,  because  nearly  all  the 
maps  have  been  drawn  to  the  same  scale,  by  the  pro- 
cess of  photogravure,  in  order  to  facilitate  comparisons. 
Those  now  cited  are  all  on  the  same  scale. 

In  Vol.  Y.  the  maps  to  be  studied  at  this  point  are 
those  published  from  1722  to  1750,  that  is,  smce  the 
Gveat  Falls  of  Uruguay  and  the  affluents  of  the  Uruguwy- 
Pita  and  Uruguay- MÍ7VI  were  for  the  first  time  repre- 
sented in  the  Upper  Uruguay  (where  previously  the 
Pepiry  and  some  affluents  without  names  only  appeared) 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty  of  Limits  of  1750. 

These  are  the  maps  : 

No.  3  :  Second  Map  of  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay, 
composed  in  1722,  engraved  at  Rome  in  the  year  1726 
and  dedicated  to  the  General  Prefect  Tamburixi. 

No.  4  :  Edition  of  Augsburg  of  the  preceding  Map, 
also  dedicated  to  Ta^iburiííi. 

No.  Õ :  Third  Map  of  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay,  en- 
gi-aved  at  Rome  in  1732  and  dedicated  to  the  General 
Prefect  Retz. 

No.  6  :    Paraguay  of  d'Axville,  1733. 

No.  7 :  The  Up2:)er  Uruguay  accoi-ding  to  the 
original  drawing  of  d'Anville,  in  the  French  Foreign 

Office. 

No.  8  :    Fragment  of  South  America  by  D'A^•VILLE, 

year  17-1:8. 

In  his  pamphlet  Misiones,  Dk.  Zeballos  acknowl- 
edges that  the  Pe^nry  in  the  maps  of  the  Jesuits  of 
1722  and  1732,  and  the  Pepiry  ov  Pequiry  ^^,^^^^^,^^ 
(the  two  names  in  the  Treaty  of  1750)  in  Maps  quoted 
the  Map  by  d'Axyille,  dated  1733,  are  not  '^^^l^l'J^^ 
the  river  of  the  present  Argentine  preten- 
sion,    lie   endeavors  by  tliis  to  prove  thiit  lliose  maps 


138  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

were  constructed  accordino:  to  information  of  the  Por- 
tiigucse  Jesuits,  and  accuses  tlie  Prefect  Kktz  and 
d'Anville  of  having  su[)pressed  the  river  whicli  in  the 
Map  of  1 703  of  De  l'Isle  (No.  2 ),  has  the  name  of 
^4('(//v/f///^/,  giving  to  tlie  two  rivers,  which  in  that  Map 
have  no  names,  those  of  GiiaruniJiaca  and  Peplnj. 

Neither  of  these  allei?atious  can  be  sustained. 

x\  comparison  of  Maps  1  and  2  shows  that  the 
Araiagiiá  was  also  named  Acarana.  On  the  Acara- 
gu/i  or  Acarana  was  situated  until  1637  the  mission  of 
Assumpcion,  then  transferred  to  Mbororé,  below  the 
Uruguay,  as  is  seen  in  Map  No.  1.  De  l'Isle,  without 
paying  attention  to  \vhat  Teciio  says,  placed  on  the 
Acaraguá  or  Acarana,  as  has  heretofoi-e  been  said,  the 
mission  which,  in  a  Map  constiucted  half  a  century 
earlier,  was  re[)resented  no  longer  there. 

In  the  disa[)pr<)ved  mai)S  of  1722,  1732,  and  1733 
(Nos.  3,  4,  and  6),  the  Acaraguá  was  not  suppiessed, 
as  it  a})pears  in  them  all  under  the  name  of  Acarana. 

The  two  rivers  above  the  mouth  of  the  Acaraguá  ov 
Acarana  already  have  the  names  of  Quanuinhaca  and 
Pepirif  in  the  first  Map  of  the  Jesuits  (No.  1).  There- 
fore, the  Jesuits  in  1722  and  1732,  and  d'Axville  in 
1733  (Nos.  3,  4,  and  6),  did  not  make  the  innovation 
attributed  to  them  by  the  pam[)hlet  Misiones. 

It  is  also  imjiossible  to  make  the  Portuguese  Jesuits 
responsible  for  the  position,  which  is  ti'uly  very  in- 
convenient for  the  iVrgentine  cause,  in  which,  in  those 
ma[>s,  the  riveis  Pepinj  and  Urng  nay-Pita  ai'e 
located.  Any  one  who  knows  the  discipline  that  always 
pi'evailed  in  the  Society  of  Jesus,  will  understand  that 
the  Jesuits  of  Portugal  and  Brazil  Avould  never  give 
information  contrary  to  that  afforded  by  their  brethren 
of  the  Province  of  Paraguay. 


BOUNDARY    QUESTION.  1 39 

The  Jesuits  of  that  Province  were  not  Portuguese, 
and  in  the  maps  of  1722  and  1732  it  is  stated  tliat  the 
"  Province  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  Paraguay  "  pi-e- 
sents  and  dedicates  to  the  General  Prefect  those  maps 
"  wherein  are  represented  hinds  that  have  been  culti- 
vated and  watered  with  the  sweat  and  blood  of  his 
children." 

The  dedication  of  the  first  of  those  maps  says  : 

"  Admodum  R.  in  Christo  Patri  suo  P.  Michaeli 
Angelo  Tamburixo,  Soc.  lesu  Praep.  Generali  XIV. 
Hanc  terrarum  filiorum  siiorum  sudore,  et  sanguine 
excultarum  et  rigatarum  tabulam,  D.  D.  D.  Provinda 
Paraqiiarke  Soc.  JesJ'' 

In  the  second  Map  the  dedication  is  written  in 
identical  words,  by  the  Province  of  Paraguay,  the  only 
difference  being  in  the  name  of  the  General  Prefect, 
who  was  then  Retz. 

In  the  Map  of  1733,  as  has  been  proved  by  a  tran- 
scription of  d'Anyille,  this  geographer  was  guided  by 
the  two  most  recent  maps  of  the  Jesuits,  which  wei-e 
those  of  1722  and  1732. 

In  all  the  maps  which  are  now  under  in  all  the 
examination, — Nos.    3,  4,   õ,  6,    7,    and   8,  "^^ps  of  Span- 

ii  7-^  T->',~      •  7    7  j7        ish  origin  an- 

— the  L  riKjuay-Pita  is  seen  below  the  tenor  to  1749 
Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay^  as  an  af-  the  Pepiry 
fluent    of  the 'left  bank,  and,   lower  still     ^"^  the  Uru- 

7-v       ,  PI         guay-Pita  are 

on  the  opposite  bank,  the  Pepiry  of  the         below  the 

Jesuits.  Great  Falls. 

Therefore,  tlie  Pepiry  of  the  Jesuits  is  a  river  situ- 
ated in  the  present  Argentine  territory  of  J/isiones  ;  it 
is  not  the  Peinry  or  Pequiry  of  the  Map  of  ^^^  p^^^j^y  ^^ 
1749,  since  this  is  the  first  river  above  the  Pepiry  of  the 
Great  Falls,  and  still  less  can  it  be  the  P^^ii^tas. 
Chapeco  (Pequiry  Guazd  of  the  Ai'gentines)  because 


I40  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

this  is  inuc'li  more  distant  froin  the  Great  Falls  (Salto 
Grande)  and  tVoni  the  Pe[)iiy  of  the  maps  of  the 
Jesuits  and  d'Anville. 

Father    Pkdko    Lozano,     the    "Chronicler    of    the 

Society  of  Jesus  iu  the  Province   of    Pai'aguay,"  ter- 

,    ^       minated   in  1745  his    Uhtorki  tie  la    Con- 

Lozano  s  de- 
scription of  the  V''''''!>'^«   del   Paraguai/^   llio   de  la  Plata ^y 
Uruguay,  Tucuman^   and    from   it    the    knowledsre 

[K)ssessed  by  the  Jesuits  of  that  time  con- 
cerning the  upper  course  of  the  Uruguay  can   be  seen. 

Lozano  was  not  a  Portuguese.  He  was  boi'n  at 
Madiid  September  16,  1697. 

His  description  of  the  Uruguay  eutii'ely  agrees  with 
the  maps  of  17'22  and  1732  (Nos.  3  and  5)  and  with 
those  of  d'x^nville  of  1733,  the  undated  manuscript, 
and  that  of  1748  (Nos.  6,  7,  and  8). 

The  description  of  Lozano  can  be  followed  in  any 
of  the  five  maps  cited,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  take  it 
fi-om  the  river  Yyui  (aftei'ward  Ijuhy),  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  LTruguay.  Lozano  goes  up  the  Uruguay, 
naming  the  affluents  of  the  left  bank,  and  afterwaixl 
comes  down  the  rivei-,  mentioniníí  those  of  the  I'isiht. 

In  the  ascent  of  the  river  : 

"  From  the  Yyvi,  up  the  Lnniguay,  following  one 
another  along  this  bank,"^  the  rivers  Yaguarapé,  JYuoora, 
San  Juan,  Yrihoha,  and  Urnguay-Pitâ,  which  are  tribu- 
taries of  the  Uruguay  :  notfarfroui  the  TJruguay-Pitâ, 
tills  great  river  tahes  a  prodigiovs  leap  (Salto),  Imrling 
tlie  ivliole  of  its  waters  from  a  very  high  devation  loith 
an  astonnding  roary  ^ 

'  Published  for  the  first  time  at  Buenos-Aires  by  D    Andres  LamasJ  in  1874. 

'  Left  bank. 

'  Lozano,  Hist,  dc  la  Conquista,   L,  34. 


below  the 
Great  Falls. 


BOUNDARY  (QUESTION.  H' 

Therefore  according  to  Lozaxo,  the  Uruguay-Pitâ 
was  a  river  whose  mouth  lay  below  the  Uruguay-pita 
Great  Falls,  as  it  is  represented  in  the 
maps  of  the  Jesuits  and  in  those  of  d'An- 

VILLE. 

LozA^^o  continues : 

"  A  short  distance  before  this  Uruguay-Pitâ  is  an  im- 
penetrable circle  of  pine  trees  enclosing  a  large  space  of 
ground,  some  ninety  leagues  wide,  which  extends  fi'om 
the  sources  where  the  Uruguay  rises  as  far  as  the  said 
place,  and  where  pine  trees  are  wanting  to  complete 
the  circle,  this  gap  is  defended  by  a  very  high  moun- 
tain range  which  runs  behind  the  island  of  Santa 
Catalina,  opposite  the  lake  of  Patos,  until  it  meets  the 
said  pine  forests,  and  which  is  so  steep  that,  while  pack 
animals  cannot  climb  it  at  all,  men  can  only  do  so  with 
the  greatest  difficulty  and  toil.  From  it  the  sea  can  be 
discovered,  and  some  Portuguese  villages  can  be  seen. 
From  a  short  distance  after  tlte  Salto  (falls) 
mentioned,  the  stream  of  the  Uruguay  changes  directions  of  the 

/T  •  _L'  j7   '  Uruguay. 

its  direction,  because,  flowing  as  far  as  t/its 

from  North  to  8outh,'from  its  source  to  the  Salto  (falls  J 

it  runs  from  Fast  to  West.^^ 

In  this  passage  the  two  general  directions  of  the 
course  of  the  river  are  well  marked  :  the  Upper  Uru- 
guay, running  from  East  to  West  as  far  as  the  Gi-eat 
Falls  ;  and  the  Lower,  in  the  general  direction  of  North 
to  South  from  the  Falls  to  the  River  Plate. 

The  position  of  the  Great  Falls,  nearly  at  the  point 
of  deflection  of  the  Uruguay,  is  also  well  determined, 
as  can  be  ascertained  by  examining  Map  Position  of  the 
No.  29  A.  The  informants  of  the  Jesuits  G-atFaiis. 
were  Indians,   but  the  two  general  directions   of  the 


1 42  BRA  ZII.IA  N-A  KG  EN  TINE 

river,  wliicli  were  so  diifereut,  and  the  extent  and 
grandeur  of  tlie  Falls,  were  circumstances  wliicli  the 
most  iuiiioi-ant  Indian  would  necessarily  keep  in  mind 
and  would  be  ca[)able  of  indicating  with  clearness. 

The  Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay  have  an  extent  of 
about  two  kilometres  or  one  mile.  The  waters  are 
precipitated  over  a  steep  and  sheer  diorite  rock.  The 
height  of  the  fall  is  10  metres  or  32^  feet.  Above  that 
fall,  and  before  reaching  the  Cha[)ecó,  there  are  other 
saitinhoda  suiall  falls.  The  most  important  is  the 
Fortaleza.  Saltluho  (hi  Fortaleza,  which  is  as  far  as 

the  demarcating  Commissioners  reached  in  1759,  This 
is  about  1*  metres  or  6^  feet  in  height,  but  it  is  composed 
of  thi'ee  ledges.^ 

Above  the  Gi-eat  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  Lozamo  only 
mentioned  one  affluent,  which  is  the  UriKjiiay-Mitn. 

Speaking  of  the  sources  of  the  Uruguay,  he  says  (p. 
35): 

"  Its  source,  then,  is  in  the  mountain  range  lately  men- 
tioned, farther  on  than  the  island  of  Santa  Catalina  in 
20|^°,  almost  in  the  same  latitude  as  the  river  San  Fran- 
cisco: at  its  source  it  has  but  a  small  volume  of  water, 
and  divides  into  two  branches,  of  which  that  to  the 
South  is  called  the  UriK/iiay-Min'i.,  and  the  one  to  the 
North,  U i'>igiia(/-Giiazii,  mto  which,  befoi'e  they  unite, 
so  many  rivulets  flow  that  from  there  it  runs  in  a  great 
volume  ;  and  from  here,  as  toe  have  ascetuled  giving 
the  description  of  its  left  or  Eastern  haiih,  we  will  go 
down  along  the  opposite  side  until  we  stop  again  at 
the  point  where  it  loses  its  name  and  gives  the  volume 
of  its  waters  to  the  River  Plate." 


'  Sr.  Virasoro,  now  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Re- 
public, shows  in  §  VI.  of  his  pamphlet,  Misiones y  Arbitraje,  the  insignificance 
of  this  small  Fall. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I43 

LozANO,  it  is  seen,  is  about  to  begin  the  descent  of  the 
Urngiiay  fVom  tlie  point  where  the  Urnguay-Mini  unites 
with  this  river,  and  he  will  now  proceed  to  point  out 
the  affluents  of  the  right  bank. 

The  first  he  mentions  is  a  Pepiry  hrlov:  the  Great 
Falls  (Salto  Grande),  as  in  the  iiiai)s  of  the  Jesuits. 

This  is  what  the  chronicler  of  the  Society  of  Jesus 
says  ([).  3())  : 

"  From  these  sources  of  the  Uruguay  to\vai-ds  the 
North  and  West,  there  are  some  fifty  leagues  of  very 
dense  forests  as  far  as  the  Plains  of  Giiayni,  which  be- 
long to  the  government  of  Paraguay,  and  in  them  wan- 
der many  unconveited  Indians,  Guayands,  Ihirayarás, 
Giialaclios,  most  fierce  peo[)le,  and  the  Yraitis^  so  called 
because  they  are  accustomed  to  wear  caps  of  ^vax  upon 
their  heads.  In  the  direction  of  the  East,  the  said 
sources  may  be  some  ninety  leagues  from  the  true 
boundaries  of  Brazil,^  and  rannvng  by  tlie  bank,  after  tlie 
Falh,  tlieii/rst  river  to  enter  tlie  Urvguait  is      ^^  „    . 

'         ^'  7  '•   7         7  ^^  Pepiry 

tbe  Pepiri,  a  very  full  stream^  oftvhic/i  only   of  the  Jesuits 
t'r(mi  tlie  mxmints  of  tie  Indians,  for  the        ^eiow  the 

'  .y  ■        1       1-  1         i   '         u     'i.  '  Great  Falls. 

iSpaniards  did  not  -sec  it,   it  was  very  con- 
stantly   reported     among     the    first    conquei'ors    and 
their  descendants  that   its  fine  sands   were   very  auri- 
ferous.    ..." 

After  the  Great  Falls  and  the  Pepiri  (that  of  the 
Jesuits),  says  Lozano,  continuing  down  the  Uruguay 
and  naming  the  tributaries  of  the  right  bank  : 

"  Trav(dlin<j  towards,    the    South,  came   successively 


'  At  this  point,  like  a  good  Spaniard,  Lozano  contested  therij^ht  of  Portugal 
to  the  lands  to  which  it  was  in  possession  North  of  the  Uruguay. 

It  has  already  been  said  (page  60  in  this  Vol.)  that  this  Father  Loz.vNo  was 
the  writer  of  the  representations  addressed  by  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay  to  the 
Court  of  Madrid,  petitioning  for  the  annulment  of  the  Treaty  of  1750. 


1 44  BRA  ZIL I A  N-A  RGEN  7  JNE 

after  this  river,  the  Guanumbaca,  Acaraf/ua//,  and 
Mhororè.     ..." 

This  is  a  second  proof  that  the  Acavaguá,,  or  Acara- 
f/fiat/  was  not  suppressed  iu  the  Maps  of  1722  and  1732 
and  in  those  of  d'Anville,  as  Dr.  Zeballos  has  sup- 
posed in  his  pamphlet  Misiones,  since,  undei"  the  name 
of  Acaraiia,  which  it  also  had,  it  appears  in  those  maps 
between  the  GuaniLmbaca  and  the  Mbororé^  that  is  to 
say,  in  the  position  indicated  by  Lozaxo. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  proceed  further  with  the  tran- 
scription of  the  text  of  Lozaxo,  since  immediately 
below  the  jMborore  is  the  Mission  of  S.  Xavier,  the 
starting  point  of  the  Commissioners  of  1759  when 
they  went  up  the  Uruguay  to  survey  the  Pepiiy  or 
Pequiry  of  the  Treaty  of  1750. 

In  the  pamphlet  quoted,  written  ''  to  refute  errors  of 

Brazilian   origin  and    to  enlighten   public  opinion  in 

North  and  South  America  "  there  are  two 

The  Pepiry  in  ...  i  •    i  i  •  i 

d'Anviiieisnot  P^'^^l'^^*^^^*^'^^  whicli   need  a  I'apid   examina- 

the  river  of  the  tiou. 

Argentine  pre-        jyjj,    MINISTER    ZeBALLOS    aSSertS    in    this 

tension.  111  i  m  i  i       i  • 

pamphlet  that  the  errors  attributed  by  him 
to  the  Maj)  of  Paraguay  (17'53)  by  d'Anville  wei'e 
corrected  iu  the  Map  of  South  America  (1748)  by  the 
same  geographer,  and  affirms  that  the  Pepiry  in  the 
second  of  those  maps  is  the  river  of  tlie  Ai-gentine  pre- 
tension.* 

'  "  D'Anville  corrects  in  the  American  Map  the  Portuguese  datum  of  his 
map  of  Paraguay  of  1733.  .  .  .1  can,  therefore,  affinn  that  the  river  to 
the  East  in  this  Map  (1748),  called  Pequiry,  is  the  one  which  corresponds  to  the 
boundary.  D'Anville  did  not  rectify  the  situation  of  the  Uruguay-Pitd  -which 
in  all  the  tnaps  of  that  period  is  vaguely  indicated"  (this  proposition  is  very 
exact  and  important).  "  The  new  position  of  the  rivers  given  by  d'Anville, 
is  no  longer  that  of  the  I'ortuguese  in  the  map  of  1733,  nor  that  of  the 
Spaniards.     It  is  that  of  Nature,  because  it  is  the  one  which  Argentines  and 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  145 

A  mere  comparison  of  the  two  maps  (Nos.  6  and  8) 
shows  that  in  both  the  Pe[)iiy  has  its  month  to  tlie  West 
and  heloiv  the  Great  Falls,  and,  therefore,  it  is  a  river 
which,  drawn  upon  the  Map  of  the  Brazilian-Argentine 
Joint  Commission  (No.  25  A),  or  in  that  of  the  Brazil- 
ian Special  Mission  at  Washington  (No.  29  A),  would 
be  within  the  present  Argentine  territory  of  Misiones. 
The  Chapecó,  or  Pequiri-Guazii  of  the  Argentine  pre- 
tension, is  far  to  the  East  of  the  Great  Falls  (Salto 
Grande),  and  within  the  Brazilian  territory. 

Disregarding  the  Great  Falls,  and  considering  only 
the  co-ordinates  of  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry  in  both 
the  maps  and  in  that  of  the  Joint  Commission,  the 
result  is  no  less  contrary  to  the  second  affirmation 
made  in  the  pamphlet. 

It  is  not  possible  to  deduce  any  argument  whatever 
from  the  Latitudes,  because  in  all  maps  previous  to  the 
survey  made  in  1759  by  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
Commissioners  the  upper  course  of  the  Uruguay  is 
drawn  on  a  parallel  too  much  to  the  North.  Only  the 
Longitudes  can  be  compared. 

In  both  the  maps  under  consideration,  d'Anyille 
took  as  the  first  meridian  that  of  Ferro  Island,  but  in 
the  Map  of  Paraguay  (1733)  he  located  this  first 
meridian  at  19°  51'  33"  West  of  the  Observatory  of 
Paris,^  and  in  that  of  South  America  at  20°  West.^     In 

Brazilians  trace  on  their  Joint  Map,  with  lhe  natural  differences  between  the 
empirical  data  of  travellers,  as  were  those  of  1745,  and  those  which  were 
obtained  in  1887  by  approximately  accurate  scientific  operations."  (Dr. 
Zeballos,  Misiones,  p.  73.) 

'  "  The  longitude  of  these  places,  compared  with  the  determination  of  Ferro 
Island,  observed  last  by  Father  Feuillée,  of  the  Order  of  the  Minims,  at  ig" 
51'  33"  of  the  meridian  of  Paris,  has  served  as  a  basis  for  the  longitude  laid 
down  in  the  Map."  (D'Anville,  in  his  Observations  stir  la  Carte  du  Paraguay, 
p.  431  of  Vol.  XXI.,  1st  ed.,  of  the  Lettres  Édi^antes.) 

2  "  .     .     .     having  agreed  to  fix  the  Longitude  from  Paris  at  20°  in  round 


146  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

accordance  witli  these  declarations  of  the  author  the 
degrees  of  Longitude  from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich, 
which  is  2°  20'  14"  West  of  Paris,  were  marked  on 
Maps  Nos.  6  and  8. 

In  both  the  maps  the  Pepiry  lies,  with  an  insig- 
nificant diiference,  on  the  same  meridian  as  the  mouth 
of  the  Pepiry-Gauçú,  the  Brazilian  boundaiy,  which  is 
53°  48'  19"  West  of  Greenwich,  while  the  mouth  of  the 
Chapecó,  the  boundary  claimed  by  the  Argentine  Re- 
public, is  in  Longitude  52°  59'  55"  AVest  of  Greenwich. 

Consequently,  by  this  process,  and  by  the  first  and 
more  exact,  of  referring  the  rivers  of  the  controversy 
to  the  position  of  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande),  the 
Pepiry  of  the  Map  of  South,  America  of  d'Aííyille  is 
not  the  river  of  the  Argentine  pretension,  as  has  been 
aflfirmed.  By  the  second  pi-ocess,  it  Avould  undisputa- 
bly  be  the  river  of  the  present  Brazilian  boundary. 

As  to  the  boundary  line  of  Southei'n  Brazil  drawni 
by  D'Ais^viLLE  in  his  Map  of  1748,  and  quoted  by  Dr. 
Zeballos,  it  also  proves  that  that  Geographer  was 
guided  by  information  of  the  Spanish  Missionaries  of 
Parao-uay,  inasmuch  as  this  line  is  not  that  of  the  iiti 
2)0S8Ídetís  of  1748,  as  is  seen  on  the  "  Map  issued  by 
the  Courts"  of  1749,  nor  was  it  defined  in  any  Treaty 
whatever  between  Portugal  and  Spain.  D'Akville  in 
the  same  Map  of  South  Amenca  gives  to  Chile  all 
the  territory  of  Cuyo  and  nearly  all  Patagonia. 
If  it  were  entitled  to  any  weight  in  the  present 
controversy,    consistency    requires  that  the  Argentine 


numbers  from  the  same  meridian  ...  I  do  not  think  that  7  to  8  minutes 
are  an  object  that  should  ))e  very  strongly  insisted  upon."  {Lettre  de  M. 
d'Anville  à  MM.  du  Join-nal des  Savans,  stir  une  Carte  de  VAinérique  Mé- 
ridionale  qtiil  vieut  de piiblier,  in  the  Journal  des  Savans,  Paris,  March,  1750.) 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  147 

Republic,  in  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  Limits 
with  Chile,  should  couform  to  the  same  authority/ 

It  has  been  proved  that  in  the  Maps  of  the  Jesuits 
of  Paraguay,  in  those  of  d'Anville,  and  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Uruguay  by  Lozaxo,  the  Peinry  conclusions, 
and  the  Uruguay -Pita, — or,  more  exactly, 
the  two  rivers  to  which  the  Jesuits  gave  those  names, 
— emptied  themselves  into  the  Uruguay  helow  and  to 
the  West  of  the  Salto  Grande  {Great  Fall^). 

It  has  also  been  proved  that  all  of  these  documents 
were  of  Spanish  origin. 

1st.  Because  the  Maps  of  the  Jesuits  were  drawn  in 
the  Missions  and  presented  to  the  General  Prefect  in 
the  name  of  the  whole  "  Province  of  Paraguay  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus  "  ; 

2d.  Because  Lozako  was  a  Spanish  Jesuit,  a  known 
defender  in  boundary  questions  of  the  old  but  exag- 
gerated pretensions  of  the  Government  of  his  country, 
and  one  of  the  warmest  adversaries  of  the  Treaty  of 
1750; 

3d.  Because  d'Aííyille  declared  that  he  had  con- 
structed his  Map  of  Paraguay,  utilizing  the  informa- 
tion contained  in  the  Maps  of  1722  and  1732  of  the 
same  Jesuits. 

1  The  pamphlet  Misiones  quotes  a  passage  in  which  d'Anville  speaks  of 
Portuguese  information.  That  passage  refers  solely  to  the  neighborhood  of  S. 
Paulo,  and  nobody,  looking  at  a  Map,  will  say  that  the  city  of  S.  Paulo  lies 
near  the  Pepiry.  The  beginning,  already  transcribed,  of  the  Observations  of 
d'Anville  (1733),  fully  answers  the  quotation  of  that  isolated  passage. 

For  the  Map  of  South  America,  he  also  had  much  new  information  of 
Spanish  origin,  as  appears  from  the  following  passage  of  another  work  of  his  : 

"What  must  take  a  great  part  of  the  advantages  which  distinguish  the  3Iap 
of  South  America,  is  the  having  acquired  in  the  countries  occupied  by  the 
Spaniards  a  degree  of  perfection  with  which  one  would  not  have  ventured  to 
flatter  oneself."  (D'Anville,  Considerations  Générales  sur  V Etude  et  les  Con- 
noissances  que  demande  la  Composition  des  Ouvrages  de  GJographie,  Paris,  1 777-) 


148  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Evidence  of  Portuguese  orio^iu  as  to  the  true  position 
of  the  Pequiry  of  the  Brazilians  of  S.  Paulo,  or  Paulis- 
Tu   n      -1 -.^  tas, — Mr    -first  river  ahove  the  Great  JFalls 

i  he  Brazilian  '  <' 

Pepiryin  the  ( Solto  GrcDuJe), — will  uow  appear  with  all 
Map  of  1749:    clearness  in  the  manuscript  Map  of  1749, 

first  river  ,         ,.     ,    .  ,    ,. 

above  the  upou  wliich  was  urawu  tlie  divisional  line 
Great  Fails,  j^g  agreed  upou  iu  the  Treaty  of  Limits  of 
January  13,  1750. 

This  is,  however,  the  second  document  upon  which 
it  is  proposed  to  base  the  Argentine  claim. 

Map  No.  7  A,  appended  to  this  Statement  (Vol.  VL), 
is  a  faithful  leproduction  of  the  original  used  by  the 
Plenipotentiaries  of  Portugal  and  Spain  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  Treaty. 

No.  8  A  is  this  same  Map,  examined  by  M.  Emile 
Levasseur,  of  the  Institute  of  France. 

No.  10,  in  Vol.  v.,  is  a  reproduction  of  the  section 
of  this  Map  in  which  the  territory  now  contested  is 
situated.  The  section  was  raised  to  the  scale  of  the 
ma})s  of  the  Jesuits  and  those  of  d'Anville. 

In  No.  8  A,  the  following  conditions  have  been  made 
under  the  supervision  of  M.  E:\íile  Levasseur,  after 
he  had  studied  the  ])rojection  of  the  Map : 

a)  the  degrees  of  Longitude  have  been  traced  with 
reference  to  the  meridians  of  Rio  de  Janeiro,  Paris,  and 
Greenwich ; 

b)  the  coast-line  has  been  marked  in  red,  from  Cape 
S.  Roque  to  the  River  Plate,  and  also  the  lower  coui'ses 
of  the  Uruguay,  the  Paraná,  and  the  Paraguay,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  projection  of  the  Map  and  the  French 
Admiralty  Charts  by  Mouchez  ;  and 

c)  in  the  same  red  color,  the  rivers  of  the  contested 
territory  have  been  marked,  in  accordance  with  the 
Map  of  the  Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  149 

It  has  already  been  stated  and  proved  by  two 
letters    of    June    24    and    July   12,   1751,  „ 

„     ,        _  ^       -  T  T»V     T    -n     HowthePor- 

01  the  Portuguese  Ambassador  at  Madrid,    tuguese  Map 
that  the  Map    of    1749  was  executed  at     of  1749  was 

T  •   1  executed. 

Lisbon. 

The  most  conclusive  proof,  however,  that  it  is  a 
Portuguese  Map  is  in  the  following  beginning  of  the 
Official  Letter  of  February  8,  1749,  addressed  by  the 
Minister  for  Foreign  Aifairs  of  Portugal  to  the  Am- 
bassador at  jNLadrid  : 

"  I  hand  to  Your  Excellency  the  Map  I  had  promised, 
showing,  hij  a  red  line,  the  boundaries  indicated  in  the 
Draft  Treaty.  The  part  of  this  Map  which  refers 
to  the  Sp)anish  lands  in  the  South  is  taken  from 
the  Map  in  Vol.  21  of  the  Edifying  Letters  jproduced 
hy  the  Spanish  Missionaries.  That  lohich  refers  to 
our  lands  in  the  same  Soutliern  part  is  tahen  from 
the  Geographiccd  Map  of  F^-  Diogo  Soares.  The 
part  tvhich  follows  from  the  River  Parana  to  the 
Cuiabá  is  taken  from  the  Map  sent  by  Gomes  Freire 
DE  Andrada,  and  from  other  reports  of  travelUrs. 
The  River  Guaporé  and  the  Missions  of  Moxos  are 
drawn  according  to  the  reports  and  sketches  of  some 
miners  at  Matto  Grosso,  who  were  there  twice,  and 
from  some  information  they  gathered  there.  The  situa- 
tion of  our  Missions  of  the  river  Madeira,  and  of  the 
River  Tapajoz,  and  their  neighborhood,  is  taken  from 
maps  and  reports  which  have  come  from  Pará.  The 
river  Amazonas  was  copied  from  the  Map  of  La  Cox- 
DAinNE,  the  Orinoco  from  the  book  of  F!"  Guíiilla, 
and  the  country  lying  between  these  rivers  is  drawn  ac- 
cording to  some  imperfect  information  given  by  the 
Carmelite  Missionaries  of  the  Rio  Negro.  That  which 
lies  between  the  river  Amazonas  and  the  Province  of 


150  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Charcas  is  iiiiagiiiary,  and  lias  no  foundation  except  in 
the  knowledge  that  the  large  rivers  which  empty  them- 
selves into  the  Amazonas  come  from  that  part,  and 
that  there  is  a  chain  of  mountains  which  follows  the 
course  of  the  river  Amazonas  from  East  to  West  al- 
though distant  from  this  river. 

^'Kefei-ring  now  what  has  been  said  in  the  draft  to 
that  which  is  seen  in  this  Ma[),  there  can  he  no  doubt 
regarding  the  ivhole  part  of  the  horders  tvhich  runsfrmyi 
the  disputed  territorji  on  the  hanh  of  the  river  Plate  to  the 
Great  Falls  of  the  Paraná,  because  it  is  a  known  coun- 
try in  which  the  Spanish  maps  agree  with  ours  in  that 
which  refers  to  the  country  bordering  on  Colónia,  Rio 
Negro,  Uruguai,  Iguaçu,  and  Paraná,  and  their  sur- 
roundings. AVith  regard  to  Lake  Merim  and  its  neigh- 
borhood, concerning  which  the  Spaniards  had  no  infor- 
mation, we  can  affirm  that  they  are  as  in  the  Map,  because 
various  geographical  maps,  by  different  Authors,  which 
have  come  to  us  from  those  parts,  agree  on  that  point. 
If  there  he  any  scruple  as  to  the  name  of  tlie  river 
Piquiri,  along  which  the  draft  leads  the  houndary  to  reach 
the  Iguaçu,  it  may  he  said,  that  it  (the  houndary)  is  to  he 
along  the  river  which,  discharging  into  the  Uruguai,  shall 
forrmvith  the  course  of  the  same  Uruguai  the  line  nearest 
to  the  Xorth  direction,  and  that  from  the  headwaters  of 
such  river  those  of  the  nearest  river  that  empties  itself 
into  the  Iguaçii  shall  be  sought,  and  that  along  it  the 
boundary  shall  be  established.     .     .     ."  ' 


'  Official  letter  of  February  8,  1749,  of  Marco  Antonio  de  Azeredo  Cou- 
tinho, Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  for  Portugal,  addressed  to  Vis- 
count Thomaz  da  Silva  Telles,  Ambassador  at  Madrid.  The  copy  in  the 
possession  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  was  authenticated  on  October  31, 
1893,  by  the  Portuguese  Foreign  Office,  where  the  original  minute  is  preserved. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  15I 

This  last  passage  has  already  been  quoted,  but  it  is 
expedient  to  reproduce  it  here. 

The  "Map  issued  by  the  Courts,"  of  1749,  is,  there- 
foi'e,  indisputably  a  Portuguese  Map,  as  was  stated 
in  1776  by  the  Marquis  di  GEorALDi,  Secretary  of 
State  in  Spain. 

It  was  constructed  in  view  of  the  best  Portuguese, 
Spanish,  and  French  geographical  documents  then  exist- 
ing, and,  as  was  natural,  many  errors  of  previous  maps 
were  corrected,  according  to  information  from  the 
Portuguese  authorities  in  Brazil,  and  above  all  of  the 
Paulistas,  who  were  the  explorers  of  its  whole  interior. 
Walckexaer  indirectly  acknowledged  the  superiority 
of  this  map  over  that  of  Paraguay  by  d'Anville,  since 
that  of  Belles"  of  1756,  to  which  he  refers,  is  a  mere 
copy  of  it.^ 

On  examining  No.  8  A,  which  was  studied  by  M. 
Emile  Levasseur,  No.  29  A,  and  the  Ma])  of  Sotitliern 
Brazil^  it  is  at  once  seen  that  the  difference  Latitude  of  the 
between  the  Latitude  of  the  mouth  of  the  upper  course 
Pepiry  in  the  "  Map  issued  by  the  Courts  "  °^*^"  Uruguay, 
and  that  which  was  observed  upon  the  ground,  could 
not  disappear,  even  though  the  Portuguese  and 
Spanish  Commissioners  in  1759  had  continued  to  ascend 
the  river  as  far  as  the  confluence  of  the  Pelotas  and  of 
the  Canoas,  where  the  Uruguay  begins.  The  course  of 
this  river  is  represented  in  the  "  Map  issued  by  the 

'  The   Map  of  Bellin  is  appended  to  this  Statement  under  No.  lo  A,  (Vol. 
VI.)  and  will  be  treated  of  shortly. 

Walckenaer  says,  speaking  of  the  Map  of  Paraguay  by  d'Anville  : 
"  He  brought  this  work  to  perfection  in  his  Map  of  South  America  ;  but, 
although  he  corrected  that  part  of  his  Map  in  1765  and  1779.  it  is  still  less 
accurate  in  the  outlining  of  the  coasts  after  the  last  correction,  than  that  which 
was  published  by  Bellin,  in  1756,  in  the  Hisioire  du  Paraguay  by  Father 
Charlevoix."     (Walckenaer,  Notice  stir  Don  Felix  de  Azara.) 


1 52  BRAZILIAN-ARGEXTIA'E 

Courts,"  some  forty  miles  to  tlie  Noi-th  of  the  parallel 
iu  which  it  should  be,  and  the  same  erroi'  is  noticed  in 
all  previous  uiaps. 

This  difference  iu  the  Latitude  was  the  cause  of 
the  chief  doubt  entertained  l)y  the  Spanish  Commis- 
sioner Arguedas,  a  doubt  immediately  removed, 
because  it  was  impossible  to  go  and  seek  further  a 
river  which  the  "  Map  issued  by  the  Courts  "  located 
so  near  the  Great  Falls  (Salto  Grande). 

The  Latitude  of  these  Falls  was  also  wrong  on  the 
Map,  and  the  Treaty  of  January  17,  1751,  "upon  the 
interpretation  of  the  Geographical  Ma[)S,"  anticipated 
the  inevitable  inaccuracies  that  would  be  found  when 
the  Demarcating  Commissioners  should  proceed  u[)on 
the  ground  to  a  survey  never  before  undertaken. 

This  difference  iu  the  Latitude  does  not  benefit  the 
Argentine  cause,  because  neither  is  that  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Chapecó  in  accordance  with  that  of  the  Peipiiry 
or  Pepiry  of  the  3Iap. 

The  other  doubt  of  Commissioner  Aeguedas,  as  was 
Relative  posi-  «t*en  by  his  statement  at  the  conference  of 
Pepfry  Vild  March  7,  1759,  had  reference  to  the  relative 
Uruguay-Pita,  positions  occupied  iu  the  Map  by  the 
Pepiry  or  Pequiry  and  the  Uruguay-Pita. 

In  the  Map,  the  mouth  of  the  Uruguay-Pita  is  below 
that  of  the  Pe[)iry.  On  the  ground,  and  according  to 
the  infoi'mation  of  the  guide  Arikapy,  it  was  found 
above  the  mouth  of  the  Pe})iry. 

The  explanation  of  this  is  very  simple. 

Li  the  maps  of  the  Jesuits,  as  has  been  shown, 
both    the    Pe|)iry    and    the    Uruguay-Pita 

Pepiry  above  the  .  '177  i        /'1  "^  j ''    u 

Great  Falls,        havc  tueir  luouths  oelow  the  (jrcat  ±aUs. 

be'iow.^^^'^^     The  Portuguese  Government  in  the  Map 

of    1749   located    the    Pe[)iry  or    Pecjuiry, 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  153 

according  to  the  iuformatiou  of  the  Paulistas,  ahom 
the  Great  Falls,  and    it  made  no    change     p^q^i^y^^pe- 
whatever  in  the  position  which   the  maps         ^'^l°y,J^^l 
of  the  Jesuits  and  those  of  d'Axville  at- 
tributed to  the  Uruguay-Pita. 

The  divisional  line  did  not  pass  along  this  river  and, 
thus,  its  position  on  the  Map  was  not  a  point  of  im- 
portance or  interest.  And  the  Instructions  given  to 
the  Commissioners  in  1758  do  not  say,  as  was  asserted 
in  1789,  that  the  Pepiry  was  to  be  sought  above  the 
Uruguay-Pita. 

It  has  already  been  proved  in  another  place,^  and 
when  quoting  Print  No.  27  (Vol.  Y.  of  this  Statement), 
that  the  Great  Falls  are  represented  in  the  ^he  Great  Faiis. 
"  Map  issued  by  the  Courts  ''  immediately 
below  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry.  The  Portuguese  car- 
tographer of  1749  omitted  to  write  the  word — Salto 
(Falls),— but  made  the  distinctive  sign  of  cataracts, 
according  to  the  custom  of  that  time. 

In  1759  and,  it  appears,  since  1750,  the  Jesuits 
of  the  Missions  gave  the  name  of  Pe-  Transferor 
piry    to    the    first    river    above    the    Falls  ""'""• 

(Salto),  no  doubt  because  they  preferred  as  a  limit  the 
Brazilian  Pequiry  or  Pepiry,  more  to  the  East,  to  their 
old  Pequiry  below  the  Falls.  Until  1749,  as  may  be  seen 
in  a  Map  of  that  date  by  Father  Joseph  ^^^„,q^^^„^^. 
QtriROGA,'  they  called  the  first  river  above 

1  Pages  121  and  122  in  this  Vol. 

-  No.  9,  Vol.  v.,  Title  :  "  Mapa  de  las  Missiones  de  la  Comp.\í:ia  de  Je- 
sus EN  /  LOS  RIOS  Paraná,  y  Vruguay  conforme  à  las  mas  modernas  obserz'a- 
ciones  de  Latitud  y  Longitud  ;  hechas  en  los  pueblos  de  dichas  Missiones,}'  à  las 
relaciones  anti-  j  guas  y  modernas  de  los  Padres  Missioneros  de  ambos  rios.  Por 
el  Padre  JOSEPH  QuiROGA  de  la  mis/na  Campania  de  Jesus  en  la  Provinda  de 
el  Paraguay  /  Ano  1749,  /  Ferdinandus  Franceschelli  sculp.     Roniíe  I753-" 

This  Map  is  much  inferior  to  the  previous  ones  of  the  Jesuits.  It  is  only  in- 
teresting as  showing  that  at  that  date  the  Jesuits  still  knew  by  the  name  of 


154 


BK  A  ZILIA  X-ARGENTINE 


Names  changed. 


the  Falls  x\pitereby,  because  until  then — as  iu  the 
^^   ^  .     ^    ,(lesci-ii)tion   of  Lozaísh»   (1745) — the  river 

The  Apitereby  of  -l  V  / 

the  Jesuits.  to  which  tlicy  gave  the  name  of  Pepirij 
was  the  one  which  in  the  demarcation  of  1759  ap- 
The  Mandiy  pcarcd  iHuler  the  name  of  2Iandiy  Giiaçd 
Guaçúwasthe     .^,^j  '^  ^^^^^^r  eulled  Soberlío,  in  the  Ai'sjeu- 

Pepiry  of  the  '  ^ 

Jesuits.  tine  Territory  of  Misiones/ 

All  the  old  names  of  affluents  of  the  left  bank  of 
the  Uruguay  which  are  met  with  in  the  maps  of  the 
Jesuits  and  in  the  description  of  Lozano 
were  changed  when  the  Commissioners  in 
17Õ9  made  the  journey  from  S.  Xavier  in  search  of 
the  Pepiry.  The  names  Yagnarape,  JS^ucorá,  S.  Juaiij 
Yrihoba,  and  UnigHaij-Pitâ  (the  "  Ked  Uruguay ") 
did  not  then  exist  below  the  Great  Falls."' 

To  the  last,  the  name  of  Paricay  or  Piracaij  was 
given  in  the  demarcation  of  1759.  In  1788 
guaVípitã,  In  ^^^^  Spauish  geographer  Oyárvjde  found 
1759  Paricay.  the  sauie  river  witli  the  name  of  Plray 
or  Ceholloty}  It  is  now  known  as  the  Turvo '^ 
("  muddy  river"). 

Apitereby  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry  of  the  Paulistas.  When  it  was  engraved  in 
I753i  tliey  added  to  it  the  divisional  line,  according  to  the  Treaty  of  1750, 
making  it  pass  along  the  first  river  above  the  Falls  of  the  Uruguay. 

'  Map  No.  29  A,  division  F  g. 

"^  The  old  names  and  the  changes  which  subsequently  occurred  are  shown  in 
the  following  table  : 


1722 

1759 

1788 

XIX  Century. 

Yaguarapç. 

5íucorá. 
S.  Juan. 
Yriboba. 
Uruguay-Pita. 

Itapuá. 

Imbutiay-Guaçú. 
Pinday. 

Cavacuá-Guaçíi. 
Paricay  ou  Piracay. 

Pindayí. 
Cavacuá  Guaçu. 
Piray  ou  Cebollaty. 

Camanday  ou  Mbu- 

tuhy. 
Santa  Rosa. 
Nhucorá. 
Herval  Grande. 
Turvo. 

^  Oy.4rvide,  in  Calvo,   X.,  74.     It  was  in  17S8  that  he  passed  before  the 
mouth  of  this  river.  ■*  Division  F  10  in  Map  No.  29  A. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  155 

lu  a  Spanish  manuscript  Map,  which  must  hav^e  been 
drawn  on  the  River  Plate  before  1760  and  which  was 
retouched  in  part  dui'ing  that  year,  the  ohl  Spanish  Map 
Uruguay-Pitd  of  the  Jesuits  is  still  seen  ^^^  __  of  1760. 
with  its  first  name  and  with  its  mouth  between  those 
of  the  rivers  Ipane  and  Guanumbaca  on  the  o[)posite 
bank.^ 

Of  these  frequent  changes  of  name  Oyárvide  speaks 
in  the  following  terms  : 

" .     .     .     The   word  Toropi  of  the  Gua-  q      .  , 
rani  language  means  bull's  hide,  and  thus  monyto 

it  is  presumable  that  from  some  circuni-  changes  of 
stance  of  the  kind  they  substituted  for 
the  name  of  Ibicui  that  of  Toropi,  as  we  see  how  in- 
clined to  such  changes  are,  not  only  these  Indians,  but 
also  the  Spanish  inhabitants  among  whom  we  have 
travelled,  who  easily  changed  the  names  of  places  and 
rivers,  according  to  the  events  that  make  the  greatest 
impression  upon  them,  and  for  this  reason  it  is  that 
places  w^ell  known  to  the  guides  themselves  come  to 
be  strange  to  them  if  they  are  not  called  by  the  name 
by  which  they  distinguish  them,  although  in  old 
records  they  were  always  called  by  the  names  asked."  ^ 

The  Spanish  Commissioners  of  1759  also  had  occa- 

'  The  fac-simile  of  a  section  of  this  Map  is  under  No.  14,  in  Vol.  V.,  where- 
under  No.  21,  it  is  compared  with  that  of  1749.  In  Vol.  VI.  is  a  fac-simile  of 
the  whole  Eastern  part  of  the  Map  (No.  11  A). 

The  original  belongs  to  the  Brazilian  Foreign  Office  and  is  in  the  keeping  of 
the  Brazilian  Special  Mission.  Title:  "  Mapa  /  DE  Los  Confixes  de  las 
DOS  /  Coronas  de  EspaSa  y  Portugal  /en  la  /  America  Meridional  / 
que  comprehende  desde  Castillos  Grandes  j  /lasta  la  boca  del  Rio  yattrtt  con- j 
forme  à  la  Linea  Divisória  determinada  en  el  Tratado  concliiido  entre  Sus 
Mag'^'f  O]  y  F'?el  ano  I7ji.  El  color  encarnado  senala  los  dominios  de  Espafia,  y 
el  Amarillo  los  de  Portugal."  Upon  a  mark  is  seen  the  name  of  Ferdinand 
VI.  This  King  died  in  1760,  and,  therefore,  the  Map  is  not  subsequent  to  that 
date.  The  course  and  the  name  of  the  S.  Antonio  are  in  different  ink,  which 
shows  that  the  Map  was  retouched  according  to  information  supplied  by  the 
demarcating  Commissioners.  ^  OyArvide,  in  Calvo,  VIII.,  218. 


I  5  6  BA\4  ZIL  [A  N-A  RGEN  TINE 

sion  to  notice  how  tlie  names  of  the  less  important 
rivers  in  those  regions  varied,  since  they  wrote  as 
follows  in  their  Diary  (July  2,  1759)  : 

"  This  novelty  or  variation  of  names,  wliich  is  com- 
mon in  rivers  of  lesser  note, — the  inhabitants  of  one 
settlement  calling  tliem  by  one  name,  while  those  of 
others  name  them  dift'ei'ently,  and,  wliat  is  more  pecu- 
liar, the  inhabitants  of  the  same  settlement  varying 
them  according  to  their  whim, — produces  a  confusion 
which  is  reflected  in  the  ma[)s,  in  which  a  like  diversity 
is  seen." 

The  question  relating  to  the  Ui'uguay-Pita,  raised 
„   ...      r..       bv    the    Spanish     Commissioners    of    the 

Position  of  the  "  t 

first  and  second    secoud  deuiarcation,  lias  not  theimiwrtance 

Uruguay-Pita.  i    •    i      ,i  a  •  /^  • 

winch  the  Ai'i{entine  (jovernment  oives  it. 
The  demarcators  of  1759  did  not  change  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry  of  the  "  Map  of  tlie 
Courts " :  it  'tras  the  name  of  Unnjiiay-Fitá  that 
cliaiKjed  its  place,  seeing  that  it  had  been  transferred 
from  a  river  whose  mouth,  according  to  the  Miip,  is 
41  kilometres,  or  22  miles,  below  the  Great  Falls,  to 
another  which  discharges  itself  22  kilometres,  or  11.8 
miles,  above  the  same  Falls  and   above  the  mouth  of 

the    Pepiry.      For   this   second   Ui'uguay- 

The  2nd  Uruguay- Tj.  "^      ,  ^  •.  .1  c  •    1      /"t      * 

Pita  transformed  1  ita,   uow  tue  (jruai'ita,  tue  fepanisn  Coni- 

intoMberuyin  missiouers  luveuted,  after  1788,  the  name 
1788.  '  ' 

of  Mberuy,  removing  then  to  another 
river  more  to  the  East  the  name  of  Uruguay-Pita,  and 
wishing,  after  the  two  successive  removals,  to  find 
above  the  mouth  of  tlie  third  Hver  of  that  name  the  Pe- 
^^   ,,  nuirv  or  Pepirv  whose  mouth,  according 

The  Uruguay-  l  .  1       i  '  O 

Pita  of  the  Official  to  the  ''Mai)  of  the  Courts,"  is  above  an 

Mapistheist  , 

below  the  Great     uruguay-iita    truiy,    tjiit  above   the  fi'st 
river  which  had  that  name,  that  is  to  say, 


BOUNDARY    QUESTION.  I  57 

the  Uruguay- Pita  of  the  maps  of  the  Jesuits  and  of 
d'Axville,  helow  the  Great  Falls,  and  heloiv  the  point 
ivliere  the  Uruguay,  turning  to  the  South,  changes  its 
first  direction,  as  is  seen  in  those  maps  and  in  the  ^vork 

of  LOZANO. 

The  position  of  the  Pepiiy  or  Pequiiy  was  perfectly 

determined  on  the   Map  of  1749  by  that 

unalterable    and    immovable    landmark  of     '^^^  immov- 
able land- 
the     Great     Falls     (Salto     Grande),     its  mark. 

neighbor. 

The  name — Uruguay-Pita — is  not  found  eithei'  in  the 

Treaty  of  Limits  of  1750,  or  in  the  General  Instructions 

of  1751,  or  in  the  Special  Instructions  of 

1758  dven  to  the  Second  Party  charç^ed      The  Treaty 

^  .  .  a^nd  the  In- 

with  the  survey  of  the  Pepiiy  or  Pecpiiry.  structions  do 
If  the  Commissioners  of  1759  had  been  not  speak  of 
charged  with  the  survey  of  the  Uruguay-  -p-^^^^ 

Pita  it  would  have  been  their  duty  to  look 
for  it  where  the  "  Map  of  the  Courts  "  located  it, — be- 
low the  Great  Falls, — because  the  question  of  a  name, 
above  all  when,  as  has  been  proved,  names 
were  so  capriciously  variable  in  that  re-  Question  of 
gion,  could  not  be  preferred  to  that  of  a  question  of 
position  determined    in   the  Official   Map.  position. 

The  name  could  and  did  change  its  posi- 
tion, but  the  place  remained  where  it  was.  In  order 
that  the  Pepiry  demarcated  in  1759  should  continue  to 
have  an  Uruouav-Pitá  below  its  mouth,  as  it  had  when 
the  Map  was  drawn,  it  was  sufficient  to  replace  the 
name  in  its  old  position,  suppressing  the  new  name  of 
Paricay,  which,  in  fact,  did  not  last  long,  because  all 
the  names  of  affluents  of  the  Upper  Uruguay  were 
given  by  Indian  ti'avellers  of  the  Spanish  Missions, 
who  went  up  in  canoes  as  far  as  the  Itacaray  to  gather 


158  BRA  ZIL  IA  N-A  RGEN  TIN  E 

tnaté,  and  not  by  the   uncivilized   iidiabitants  of    the 
forests  crossed  by  those  rivers. 

Moreover,  a  river  of  unknown  course,  irli cm  'position 
was  indicated  at  that  time  in  a  vague  man- 

River  of  un-  -.^       -.,-.    •    ,         rr  '  ,       ^ 

known  course.  '^^/'^  ^^  ^r.  Minister  Zeballos  very  truly 
said,^  could  not  determine  the  position  of 
any  other  affluent  of  the  Uruguay,  and  still  less  change 
that  of  the  Pepiry,  which  was  perfectly  defined  by  its 
proximity  to  the  Great  Falls. 

The  really  imjjortant  point  in  the  examination  of  the 
demarcation  of  1759  is  to  ascertain  whether  the  Pequiiy 
^^        .^.        or  Pei)irv  of  the  Mai)  of  1749  is  the  Pe])iry, 

The  position  1      .^  i  1      ./  ' 

of  the  Pepiry    SOOU     afterwai'ds     (1760)     Pepiry-Guaçú, 
on  the  official   pointed   out  bv  the  Indian  Arirapy  and 

Map.  ^  111^  .      •  A 

surveyed  by  the  Commissioners  Alpoym 
and  Arguedas,  or  whether  it  is  the  Chapecó  to  which 
the  Spanish  Commissioners  gave  after  1789  the  name 
of  Pequirí-Guazú. 

Let  us  see,  then,  which  of  the  two  causes,  whether 
that  of  Bi-azil  or  that  of  the  iVi-gentine  Republic,  the 
celebrated  "Map  of  the  Courts"  upholds. 

A  ra[)id  glance  at  Map  No.  8  A,  in  which  are  the 
su[)erpositions  made  under  the  direction  of  M.  Emile 
Levasseur,  immediately  shows  that  the  Pepiry-Guaçú, 
and  not  the  Chapecó,  is  the  river  along  which  in  that 
Map  the  divisional  line  runs.^ 

Comparison  of      The     examination     of      the     Latitudes 
Latitudes.       giv^es  the  following  results : 

'  "  Tf  K\i\\\x.v.  did  not  rectify  the  position  of  the  Uruguay-Pita  which  in  all  the 
Maps  of  that  period  was  vaguely  indicated."  {Misiones,  p.  73.)  The  date  of 
the  Map  of  d'Anville  analyzed  by  the  author  is  1748. 

^  Another  graphic  comparison  of  the  Map  of  1749  ^^'iti^  tliat  of  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission  is  presented  under  No.  22  in  Vol.  V.  In  this 
superposition,  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  course  of  the  Uruguay  is  in  the 
same  Latitude  in  both  Maps. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  1 59 

1.  Latitude  of  the  niouth  of  the  Pepiry  or  Fequiry, 
afterwards  Pepiry -Guaçú,  the  Brazilian  Boundary  : 

a.  In    the    Map    of    the    Plenipotentiaries   of       Lat.  S. 
1749 26°  27'  48" 

b.  In  the  Map  of  the  Joint  Commission 27"^  10'  03" 

2.  Latitude  of  the  fnouth  of  the  Chapeco  ( Pequiri 
Guazii  of  the  Argentines),  the  boundary  claimed  by  the 
Argentine  Republic : 

a.  In  the  Map  of  the  Joint  Commission 27°  05'  41" 

b.  At  the  point  in  the  course  of  the  Uruguay 
which  it  would  occupy  on  the  Map  of  the  Pleni- 
potentiaries if  it  were  represented  upon  this 
Map  according  to  the  Longitude  known  at  the 

present  day 26'  25'  06" 

Difference  between  the  Latitude  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Pepiry  in  the  Map  of   the  Plenipotentiaries 

and  in  that  of  the  Joint  Commission 0°  42'  15" 

Difference  between  the  Latitude  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Chapeco  and  that  of  the  Pepiiry  in  the  Map 

of  the  Plenipotentiaries 0°  37'  53" 

Difference  between  the  Latitude  of  the  mouth 
of  the  Chapeco  on  the  Map  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission and  that  of  the  point  in  the  course  of 
the  Uruguay,  corresponding  in  the  Map  of  the 
Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Longitude  of  the  mouth 
of  the  same  river o^  40'  35" 

In  the  Map  of  1749  the  course  of  the  Upper 
Uruguay  is  not  in  the  Latitude  in  which  it  should  be, 
but  the  error,  as  is  evident,  does  not  benefit  the  Argen- 
tine Republic,  since  its  Pequiri  Guazú  (Chapeco)  has 
not  its  mouth  in  the  same  Latitude  as  that  of  the 
boundary  river  in  the  Map. 

The  question  of  Latitude  in  this  case  is  of  no  impor- 
tance. The  Treaty  describing  a  boundary  running 
from  South  to  North,  only  the  difference  in  the  degrees 
of  Lonçíitude  could  modifv  it,  mvino-  more  or  less  land 
to  Portugal   or    Spain,     It    is    evident    that    any  one 


1 6o 


B/iA  ZILIA  i\-AKGEN  TINE 


ti'a veiling  aloiiLi'  tlie  Vxniiulaiy  thus  marked,  constantly 
clianLies  the  Latitude  at  every  ste})  taken  towards  the 
North  oi'  South. 

The  important  point,  then,  is  to  ascertain  the  Longi- 
tude (»f  the  m<»uth  of  the  boundaiy  river  on  the  Map 
and  its  distance  from  the  Great  Falls,  and 

Comparison  of  ,  i  •  t       i  i        •        i 

Longitudes.  ^^*  compare  the  results  with  those  obtained 
by  a  corresponding  examination  on  the 
Map  of  the  Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission  with 
reference  to  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú,  the  Bra- 
zilian boundary,  and  that  of  the  Chai)ecó  or  Pequiri 
Guazii,  the  boundary  of  the  Argentine  claim. 

1 .  Longitude  of  the  mouth  of  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry, 
aftenvards  Pepiry-Guaçú^  the  Brazilian  boundary  : 

a.  On    the    Map    of    the    Brazilian-Argentine  w.  of  Greenwich. 
Joint  Commission  (No.  25  A) 53°  48'  19" 

b.  On  that  of  1749  of  the  Plenipotentiaries,  ac- 
cording to  M.  Emile  Levasseur  (No   8  A) 53°  46'  22" 

Difference  between  these  two  Longitudes 0°  01'  jy" 

2.  Longitude  of  the  mouth  of  the  Chape co  (  Pequi ry- 
Guazii,  according  to  the  Argentines),  boundary  claimed 
by  the  Argentine  Republic  (Map  of  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission) 52°  59'  55" 

Difference  between  this  Longitude  and  that  of 
the  mouth  of  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry  in  the  Map  of 
1749  referred  to  above,  according  to  M.  E.  Levas- 
seur         0°  46'  27" 

Therefore,  the  river  which  the  Ma})  of  1749  desig- 
nates as  the  boundary  is  not  the  Cha[)ecó  or  Pequiri- 
Guazii,  as  the  Argentine  Republic  asserts;  it  is 
the  Pepiry-Guaçii,  the  old  Pequiiy  of  the  Biazilians 
of  S.  Paulo,  the  boundary  of  Brazil  since  the  XVIIth 
century. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION, 


l6l 


s 

0) 

12 

1.8 
1.6 

1-5 
26.9 

5-5 
4-5 

80.7 

10.2 
9.2 
8.3 

149-5 

A  comparison  of  the  distances  between  the  mouths 
of  the  two  rivers  of  the  conti-oversy  and  the  r»-  * 

•■  Distance  from 

Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay  will  give  safer        the  Great 
and  not  less  conclusive  results:  FaUs. 

1 .  Distance  (  along  the  ivindings  of  the  river) 
from  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry,  afterwards 
Fepiry-  Guaçú,  the  Brazilian  boundary  : 

a.  In  the  Map  of  1 749  of  the  Plenipo- 
tentiaries   

b.  According  to  the  Diary  of  the  demar- 
cators  of  1759  ( i  league  and  \) 

c.  In  the  Map  of  the  Brazilian-Argentine 
Joint  Commission 

2.  Distance  (along  the  windings  of  the  river), 
accordijig  to  the  Map  of  the  J^oint  Commission, 
from  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Chapecó  (the  Pequiri  Guazil  of  the 
Argentines),  the  boundary  claimed  by  the  Argen- 
tine Republic 

Therefore,  the  river  along  which,  in  the  Map  of 
17-19,  the  red  line  passes  which  marks  the  boundary 
defined  in  the  Treaty  of  1750  is  the  Pepiry-Guaçú 
which  Brazil  defends,  and  not  the  Pequiri-Guazú  of 
the  Argentine  pretension. 

A  mei'e  glance  at  Map  Xo.  8  A  shows  besides  that 
the  distance  between  the  mouth  of  the  river  alono- 
which    the    boundary   is   drawn    and    the 

T  •    ,  ,1  ,      •     Distance  from 

corresponding  j)*^iiit  on  the  sea-coast  is  ^j^^  ^^^ 
approximately  the  same  distance  that 
separates  the  mouth  of  the  Pepirv-Guaçú  from  the 
littoral  of  Santa  Catharina,  while  the  distance  between 
the  mouth  of  the  river  of  the  Argentine  pi-etension 
and  the  sea-coast  is  much  less  and,  therefore,  reduces 
the  extent  of  the  lands  which,  accoi'ding  to  the  Map, 
belong  to  Portugal. 

The  Memorandum  of  1883,  of  the  Minister   ^ 

»T^.  K  n'   '  Pii  4  •         T»*     ~^^  question 

tor  roreign  Aiiairs  ot  the  Argentine  Ke-         is  solved, 
public,  Dr.  YictoFvIno  de  la  Plaza,  said : 


1 62  BRA  ZIL I A  N-A  R  GE  N  TINE 

"  .  .  .  If  it  is  possible  to  determine  which  were 
the  hoioidaries  traced  vpon  that  ^Lap,  the  question  toill 
he  implicitly  and  authoritatively  solved,  provided  the 
rivers  drawn  upon  it  exist  and.  agree  with  the  geo- 
graphical positions  marhed  thereon  arid  with  the  descrip- 
tions relating  tlieretor 

The  demonstration  is  made,  and,  therefore,  the 
question  is  "  implicitly  and  authoritatively  solved." 
The  river  of  the  boundary  iu  the  "  Map  of  the  Courts" 
is  indisputably  the  Pepiry-Guaçíi  and  not  the  Chapecó, 
This  last — the  Pequirí-Guazú  of  the  Argentines — is 
there  re[)resented  without  a  name,  approximately  iu 
its  place,  to  the  East  of  the  river  of  the  boundary 
and  to  the  West  of  the  mouth  of  the  Uruguay-Mi  rim. 
_,     .        ^.         This  is  so  evident,  that  Mr.  Minister  Es- 

The  Argentine  ' 

Minister  TAX1SLÁ0   S.  Zeballos  indirectly  acknowl- 

acknowledges  ,     .      .       ,  .  y  ^    ,      n/r  •    •  ^ 

that  the  Map  edged  it  in  his  pamphlet  Misiones  when 
favoi-ab/eto  ^^  analyzed  the  Map  of  Paragua}^  by 
Brazil.  Bellhí  dated  1756. 

Tliis    Map,    praised    by    AValckexaer,    is,   as    has 

been  said,  a  faithful  and  accurate  copy  of  a  part  of 

the    Map  of    1749  called    "Map    of   the 

BeiHn  i7a°copy     Courts."     Thei'e  is  no  difference  whatever 

oftheMapof.749.  |j^  ^|j^  drawlug  of  thc  sca-coast  or  in  the 

coui-ses  of  the  rivers,  as  will  be  seen  by  placing  the 
fac-simile  No.  10  À  (Map  of  Bellin,  in  Vol.  VI.  of  this 
Statement)  over  No.  7  A  ("  Map  of  the  Courts,"  in  the 
same  volume). 

The  fac-simile  No.  lU  A  represents  the  original  en- 
larged to  the  scale  of  the  "  Map  of  the  Courts,"  by  the 
process  of  photogravure  whose  strict  accuracy  cannot 
be  disputed. 

The  only  additions  or  alterations  that  Bellix  made 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  1 63 

when  copying  the  "  Map  of  the  Coiu'ts,"  consisted : 
1st,  in  adopting  an  inexact  projection  for  the  drawing 
already  made  which  he  did  not  study  with  sufficient 
care ;  2d,  in  slightly  modifying  the  Latitudes  and  in 
asserting  that  he  graduated  the  Longitudes  by  the 
meridian  of  Paris,  but  making  an  error  of  about  two 
degrees,  so  that  the  Longitudes  almost  correspond  to 
those  of  Greenwich ;  3d,  in  putting  in  the  name  of 
Lake  Xareyes  (Xarayes  is  the  name),  and  in  drawing 
the  Oiejones  Islands  which  preceding  maps  located  in 
those  periodical  swamps  produced  by  the  great  inun- 
dations of  the  L'pper  Paraguay. 

The  rivers  Pequiri  and  TIruguaypita  of  the  "  Map 
of  the  Courts "  appear  in  that  of  Bellix  under  the 
names  of  Pequin  and  Ui'ug^'ciyfosta,  mistakes  which 
can  only  be  imputed  to  the  engi'aver,  as  it  is  easy  to 
read  Pequin  instead  of  Pequiri,  and  Uruguayfosta 
instead  of  Uruguaypuita,  as  it  would  be  in  the  manu- 
script.    The  wová  p)itâ  (red)  is  also  written 7>w//í7. 

A  reproduction  of  the  part  of  this  Map  representing 
the  disputed  territory  is  given  under  No.  12  in  Vol.  V., 
and  on  it  are  marked  with  the  letters  x\, 
B,  and  C,  the  three  affluents  to  which  Mi-.       Dr.  zebaiios 

„.,«,,.  and  the  Map 

Minister  Zeballos  refers  in  the  lollowmg  of  Benin, 

passage  of  his  pam[)hlet  Mixiones^ : 

"  The  work  of  Chaelevoix  is  entitled :  Histoire  du 
Paraguay  par  le  P.  Pierre  Francois  Xavier  de  Char- 
levoix de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus.  A  Pai'is,  1757.  To 
the  third  Volume  is  appended  the  Carte  du  Paraguay 

^  Misiones. — Exposicioii  hecha  por  el  ex-Ministro  de  Relaciones  Exteriores  de 
la  Republica  Argentina,  Dr  D.  Estanislao  S.  Zeballos, /«rrt  refutar  errores 
de  origen  brasilero  é  ilustrar  la  opinion  pública  en  Sur  y  en  Aborte  America, 
Buenos- Aires,  1892. 

The  passage  quoted  is  from  ^  XXII.,  p.  75. 


1 64  BRA  ZIL I A  X-A  R  GEN  TINE 

et  des  pays  voisins  sui'  les  Memoires  des  Esjyagnols  et 
des  PoHiufais  et  en  particidier  cevx  des  R.  R.  P.  P.  de 
la  Compagnie  de  Jesus,  par  M.  Bellin,  Ing.  de  la  Ma- 
rine, 1756. 

"  In  these  Maps  the  names  of  the  Rivers  Guarvmhaca 
and  Pepiry  of  the  maps  of  1  703  and  of  the  general  of 
D'A^'VILLE  disa[)pear,  and  altliough  it  represents  tliree 
rivers,^  one  of  them  approximately  ivhere  our  Pepiry- 
Important  Giiazú  ís  situated,  it  omits  its  name ^  and 

declaration.  gives  that  of  river  Pcquin  to  the  Gvariim- 
haca  or  to  the  one  most  to  the  West'^  in  the  first  maps. 
It  looidd  not  he  said  that  the  Pequin  is  the  Pepiry- 
Mini^  or  the  river  stated  hy  Brazil,  ^/'Bellix  liad  not 
traced,  following  its  banks  with  a  dotted  line,  the 
boundary  between  Spain  and  Poi-tugal.     .     .     ." 

Of  the  passage  quoted,  this  important  statement 
must  be  remembered  : 

The  Pequiri  Guazii,  the  river  of  tlie  Argentine  pre- 
tension, is  the  unnamed  afiiuent  whivh  in  the  Map  of 
Belles^^  is  to  the  East  of  the  Pequiri  (Pequin). 

By  placing  the  Map  of  Bellix  (No.  10  A)  over  that 
of  "  the  Courts  "  (No.  7  A)  and  making  the  coast-line, 
the  coui'ses  of  the  Uruguay,  the  Paraná,  and  the  Iguaçu 
coincide,  it  is  seen  that  the  river  Pequin  of  Bellix  co- 

'  A,  B,  and  C,  in  the  small  reproduction  No.  12. 

■^  The  unnamed  river  {(Z)  to  the  East  of  the  Pequiri  (Pequin)  is  the  Pequiri 
Guazii  of  the  Argentines. 

^  The  river  of  the  boundary  in  the  Map  of  Bellin  (B)  is  more  Westeriy  than 
the  Pequiri  Guazii  of  the  Argentine  pretension  (C),  says  Dr.  Zrkallos. 

■*  The  author  gives  great  importance  to  the  question  of  the  adjectives  Mint 
(small)  and  Guacii  (great).  In  1789  Commissioner  Ai.vear  proposed  to  give 
the  Pepiry  Guaçã  the  name  of  Pepiry  Afini,  but  this  name  continued  to  be  that 
of  an  affluent  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú.  Besides  this  Pepiry-Mini  there  is  another, 
which  is  a  tributary  of  the^Uruguay,  in  the  Argentine  territory,  to  the  West  of 
the  Pepiry-Guaçú,  as  shown  in  Maps  No.  25  A  and  No.  29  A  and  in  the  pas- 
sage already  quoted  (page  79  in  this  Vol.)  of  the  Diary  of  the  Argentine 
Commission,  in  1887. 


B O UNDA RY  QUÊS TION.  1 6 5 

incides  exactly  tvith  the  Pequiri  along  xoMcli  the  boun- 
dary line  runs  iii  the  "  Ma^p  of  the  Courts,^''  and  that 
the  Eastern  affluent,  which  is,  as  the  author  of  the 
pamphlet  has  very  truly  said,  the  Pequiri  Guazk  (  Cha- 
pecó)  of  the  Argentine  pretension,  lies  much  to  the  East 
of  the  boundary  indicated  hy  the  ^^  Map  of  the  Courts^'' 
and  within  the  Brazilian  territory. 

The  Argentine  Republic  based  its  claim  on  two 
documents :  the  Instructions  given  to  the  demarcating 
Commissioners  of  1759,  and  the  Map  of  1749,  authen- 
ticated by  the  Plenipotentiaries. 

The  Special  Instructions  given  to  these  Commis- 
sioners have  now  come  to  light,  and  it  has  been, 
ascertained  that  they  do  not  contain  the  passage  in- 
vented in  1789  which,  as  well  as  the  Map,  served  as  a 
pretext  for  the  question  raised  in  the  second  demarca- 
tion by  the  Spanish  Commissioners.  The  Instructions 
fully  justify  the  action  of  the  Commissioners  of  1759 
and  the  decisions  taken  by  them. 

The  examination  of  the  Map  of  1749  has  just  proved 
that  this  document  is  favorable  to  the  cause  of  Brazil 
and  opposed  to  the  Argentine  claim. 

There  does  not  now  remain,  therefore,  a  single  docu- 
ment upon  which  the  Argentine  Republic  can  base  a 
condemnation  of  the  demarcation  of  1759. 

The  river  indicated  by  the  guide  Arirapy,  and  sur- 
veyed in  1759  by  General  Alpoy3i  and  by  Councillor 
Arguedas,  Commissioners  of  Portugal  and  Spain,  is 
the  same  Pepiry  or  Pequiry  as  that  of  the  Treaty  and 
the  "Map  of  the  Courts."  The  Chapecó,  claimed  by 
the  Argentine  Republic  is  the  river  which  appears 
without  a  name  on  that  Map,  to  the  East  of  the  Pequiry 
or  Pepiry  along  which  the  divisional  line  runs. 


l66  BRAZILIAX-ARGENTINE 

An  examination  of  the  Ti'eaty  of  1777  will  show 
that  the  Spanish  Government  approved  and  I'atified 
the  demarcation  of  1759. 

VIIT. 

It  was  only  in  the  Southern  Division,  from  Castillos 

Grandes  to  the  Jaurii,  and  with  the  difficulties  already 

related,  that    the    survey   of  the  fi'ontiers 

1750  annulled.  ^^^^'^^^^  ^^J  ^^  Treaty  of  1750  could  be 
cai-ried  out.  In  consequence  of  the  diffi- 
culties raised  by  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  Mission- 
aries of  the  Orinoco  and  Pai'a  against  the  advance  of 
the  demarcators,  the  Northern  Division  never  entered 
upon  its  labors.  In  1760  the  Principal  Commissioner 
of  Spain  was  still  at  Cabruta,  for  want  of  canoes  and 
Indian  rowers,  and  was  unable  to  meet  the  Commis- 
sionei's  of  Portuo-al  on  the  Rio  Ne2:ro,^ 

In  the  South,  there  were  serious  controversies  be- 
tween the  Commissioners  only  as  to  which  of  the  upper 
arms  of  the  Ibicuhy  Avas  the  river  of  the  Treaty, 
whether  that  to  the  South,  afterwards  river  Santa 
Maria,  or  the  Ibicuhy  Mirim  in  the  North,  which 
comes  from  the  range  then  called  Monte  Grande. 

The  labors  of  the  Second  Party  and  of  the  Third 
ended  without  disagreement.  In  those  of  the  Second, 
such  harmony  and  mutual  trust  pi-e vailed,  that  the 
Principal  Commissioner  and  Pleni[)otentiai'y  of  Spain, 
the  Marquis  de  Val  de  Likios,  felt  justified  in  saying 
that  the  Principal  Portuguese  Commissioner  had 
shown  the  greatest  condescension,  submitting  to  the 
direction  of  the  Spanish  Commissioner  and  being  in 

•  Viscount   de  Porto-Seouro   (Varnhagen),    Historia   Geral  do    Brazil, 
926. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  1 6/ 

favor  of  all  the  investigatioDS  and  explorations  pro- 
posed by  the  latter.  And  the  First  Portuguese  Com- 
missioner of  the  Second  Party  was  not,  as  miglit  be 
supposed,  a  man  of  no  importance  :  he  was  General 
Alpoym,  distinguished  as  a  soldier  on  the  battlefield,  and 
as  the  master  of  the  military  youth  of  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
— the  illustrious  Alpoym, — as  he  is  called  in  liis  TJra- 
guay,  by  the  first  Brazilian  epic  poet. 

All  decisions  were  made  by  the  unanimous  vote  of 
the  Commissioners  and  in  full  compliance  with  their 
Instructions,  so  that  it  is  impossible  now  to  maintain 
that  the  question  of  the  demarcation  of  the  Pepiry  and 
S.  Antonio  contributed  to  tlie  annulment  of  the  Treaty 
of  1750. 

An  authority  above  suspicion,  Count  de  Florida- 
BLANCA,  First  Secretary  of  State  in  Spain,  explains  this 
matter  as  follows  : 

"  For  these  reasons,  so  much  importance  was  given 
during  the  pi'eceding  reign  (that  of  Feedlxand  VL,  who 
was  succeeded  in  1760  by  Carlos  III.)  to  Colónia  del 
Sacramento  that,  in  order  to  acquire  it,  all  the  territory 
of  the  Ibicui,  includino-  more  than  five  hundred  leao;ues 
in  Paraguay,  ^vas  ceded  by  the  Treaty  of  1750  with 
Portugal.  The  opposition  and  tlie  intrigues  of  tlie 
Jesuits^  as  xoell  as  tlie  reluctance  of  the  Portuguese  to 
the  surrender  of  Colónia.,  compelled  Your  Majesty  to 
annul  the  Treaty.'''' ' 

'  Memorial preseniado  del Rey  Cdrlos  III. y  repetido  d  Carlos  IV.  por  el  CONDE 
DE  Florid ABLANC.A,  renunciando  el  Ministério.  The  memorial  presented  to 
Carlos  III.  is  dated  San  Lorenzo,  October  lo,  1788.  It  is  published  in  Vol.  59 
of  the  Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espailoles,  in  which  occur  the  Obras  Originales  del 
CoxDE  DE  Floridablanxa  (Madrid,  1867). 

The  passage  quoted  is  also  in  Calvo,  Reciuil  de  Traitcs,  VII.,  pp.  .wii.  to 
xxii. 


1 68  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  A'  G  EX  TINE 

D.  José  I.  of  Portugal  aud  Carlos  111.  of  Spain  did 
not  bold  the  same  views  as  D.  JoÃo  V.  and  Feudixaxd 
VI.,  regarding  the  reciprocal  adv^antages  of  the  e.x- 
chano-e  of  Colouia  do  Sacrameuto,  and  the  rio;ht  bank 
of  the  Kiver  Plate,  for  the  territory  of  the  Sev^en 
Oriental  Missions  of  Uruguay,  and  they  resolved  to 
annul  the  Treaty  of  1750  solely  in  order  to  avoid  the 
division  of  the  contested  territory  therein  stipulated. 

Each  one  of  the  two  Sovereigns  preferred  to  preserve 
in  their  integrity  their  rights  or  pretensions  to  the 
whole  of  the  territory  called  Colónia  do  Sacramento. 
For  Portugal  it  was  bounded  by  the  North  bank  of  the 
River  Plate,  where  Spain  already  held  Montevideo,  and 
by  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Uruguav,  where  the 
Seven  Oriental  Missions  were  sitmited. 

The  Treaty  of  annulment,  signed  at  El  Pardo  on 
February  12,  1761,  provided  as  follows  in  Article  1  : 

"  The  aforesaid  Treaty  of  Limits  in  Asia  and 
America,  concluded  at  Madrid  on  January  13,  1750, 
with  all  the  other  Treaties  or  Conventions,  which  after- 
wards were  concluded  in  consequence  of  it,  fixing  the 
Instructions  to  the  respective  Commissioners  who 
until  now  have  been  eno-aoed  in  the  demarcations  of 
the  said  boundaries,  and  all  that  was  drawn  up  by 
virtue  thereof,  is  now  agreed  to  l)e,  and  to  be  held, 
by  virtue  of  the  present  Treaty,  as  cancelled,  quashed, 
and  annulled,  as  if  they  had  never  existed  nor  never 
been  executed  ;  so  that  all  things  I'elating  to  Boun- 
daries in  America  and  Asia  are  restored  to  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Treaties,  Compacts,  and  Conventions 
which  had  been  concluded  between  the  two  Con- 
tracting Sovei'eigns  before  the  said  year  1750;  in 
such  manner  that  only  those  Treaties,  Compacts,  and 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  1 69 

Conventions  that  wei-e  concluded  before  the  year  1750 
shall  hereafter  remain  in  force  and  vigor." 

Article  2  said : 

"  As  soon  as  this  Treaty  shall  have  been  ratified,  the 
above  named  Most  Serene  Kinç-s  will  cause  authentic 
copies  thereof  to  be  transmitted  to  Their  res[)ective 
Commissioners  and  Governors  within  the  boundaries 
of  America ;  declaring  to  them  as  cancelled,  quashed, 
and  annulled  the  said  Treaty  of  Limits,  signed  on  the 
13th  of  January,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
fifty,  with  all  the  Conventions  that  were  derived  there- 
from and  followed  it ;  and  commanding  them  that, 
holding  as  of  no  eifect  and  causing  to  cease  all  opera- 
tions relating  to  its  execution,  they  shall  overturn  the 
monuments  or  landmarks  that  were  erected  in  conse- 
quence of  it,  and  immediately  evacuate  the  lands  that 
were  occupied  under  title  of  the  same  execution  or  by 
reason  of  the  said  Treaty,  demolishing  the  dwellings, 
houses,  or  fortresses  which  in  consideration  of  the 
aforesaid  repealed  Ti'eaty  may  have  been  built  or 
raised  by  either  party  ;  and  declaring  to  them  that 
from  the  very  day  of  the  ratification  of  the  present 
Treaty  forward,  they  shall  have  no  other  rules  to  guide 
them  except  the  other  Treaties,  Compacts,  and  Con- 
ventions, that  had  been  stipulated  between  the  two 
Crowns  before  the  said  year  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  fifty  ;  because  each  and  all  of  them  are  here- 
by reinstated  and  restored  to  their  original  and  proper 
force,  as  though  the  aforesaid  Treaty  of  the  thirteenth 
of  January  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty,  with 
the  others  that  followed  from  it,  had  never  existed  ; 
and  these  orders  shall  be  delivered  in  duplicate  from 
one  Court  to  the  other  for  its  o^uidance  and  for  their 
prompt  fulfilment." 


1 70  BK  A  ZILIA  N-ARGENTINE 

The  Preiimble  g;ive  jis  reasons  for  tlie  aiinulmeiit  of 
the  Treaty  the  great  tliliic  ill  ties  encountered  in  its 
execution  in  countries  so  distant  and  so  little  known, 
the  contradictory  information  received  regarding  them, 
and  the  fact  that  Avhile  it  had  been  coucluded  to 
establish  perfect  harmony  between  the  two  Crowns 
and  an  unalterable  union  between' their  subjects,  it 
had,  on  the  contrary,  given  rise  since  1752,  and  would 
in  future  give  rise,  to  many  controvei'sies  and  dis})utes 
op[)osed  to  those  aims. 

In  the  very  next  year  war  broke  out  between  Spain 

and  Portugal,  because  the  latter  Power  had  preferred 

an  English  alliance  to  that    of   the    Sov- 

Warofi762-   (^j.^jo-jji.   gf  the  House  of  Bourbon,  which 
1763.  ^  . 

had     concluded     the     Family     Com[)act. 

General  D.  Pedeo  de  Cevallos,  Governor  of  the 
Provinces  of  the  River  Plate,  took  Colónia  do  Sacra- 
mento (1762),  invaded  the  tei'ritoiy  of  Rio  Grande  do 
Sul,  and  occupied  both  banks  of  the  channel  of  that 
name,  between  the  Lake  dos  Patos  and  the  sea  (1763). 
By  the  Treaty  of  Peace  signed  at  Paris  on  February 
10,  1763,  it  was  pi'ovided  as  follows  (Art. 

Peace  of  o  1  \  • 

Paris,  1763.       -^  '  • 

"  The    Spanish    and    French    troops    shall 

evacuate  all  Territories,  Country  places.  Cities,  Forts, 

and  Castles  of  His  Most  Faithful  Majesty  situated  in 

Europe,  that  may  have  been  conquered  by  the  armies 

of  France  and  Spain,  without  any  exception  Avhatever  ; 

and  they  shall  restore  them  in  the  same  condition  in 

which  they  were  when   the   conquest   was  made,  and 

with   the   same   artillery  and   munitions  of  war   that 

were   in    them ;  and    irith   regard  to   the   Portuguese 

Colonies  hi  America,  Africa,  oi*  in  the  East  Indies,  if 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  171 

any  change  shall  have  happened,  all  things  shall  be 
restored  to  the  same  footing  in  which  they  were,  and 
as  provided  by  the  Treaties  previously  existing  be- 
tween the  Courts  of  Spain,  France,  and  Portugal  be- 
fore the  pi'esent  war." 

The  Spanish  General  did  not  carry  out  this  [)rovision 
of  the  Treaty,  inasmuch  as  he  only  restored      „.  ,    . 

.  1      T  1        1  Violation  of 

Colónia  do  Sacramento,  keeping  the  Islands  the  Treaty  of 
of  Martin  Garcia  and  Dos  Hermanas  and  Peace. 

Rio  Gi'ande  do  Sul. 

To  tlie  protests  of  Portugal,  the  Maequis  di  Gei- 
MALDi,  First  Secretary  of  State  of  Caelos  III.,  replied, 
on  February  6,  176Õ,  that  all  the  territories  conquered 
during  the  war  belonged  of  right  to  Spain,  and  could 
not  be  restored. 

From  that  date  to  1777  the  opposite  occurred  to 
what  Alexaxdee  de  Gusmão  had  contemplated  in 
Article  21   of  the  Treaty  of   1750,  seeing  Renewed 

that  while  the  two  Sovereigns  of  Portugal  hostilities 
and  Spain  remained  at  peace  in  Europe,  '"  Brazil, 
they  were  almost  constantly  at  war  on  the  frontiers  of 
Brazil. 

In  1767  the  Portuguese  troops  retook  the  left  bank 
of  the  Rio  Grande  do  Sul,  and,  in  1776,  the  right  bank, 
as  well  as  all  the  forts  and  territories  held  by  the 
Spaniards  in  violation  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris. 

Incensed  at  the  reverses  suffered  by  his  arms,  Cae- 
los III.  sent  against  Brazil  a  great  expedition,  under 
the  command  of  Cevallos,  who  easily  conquered  the 
Island  of  Santa  Catharina  and,  in  1777,  compelled  the 
fortress  of  Colónia  to  suriender. 

In  the  same  year  ííreat  chano-es  occurred  in  the  Govern- 
ment  of  the  two  Kingdoms  of  the  Peninsula.     On  the 


172  BRAZ! LIA  X.ARGENTINE 

death  of  I).  Jose  I.  (Febiuary  24)  D.  Maria  I.  ascended 
the  throne  of  Portugal,  and  Martikho  de  Mello  e 
Castro  succeeded  the  Marquis  de  Pombal  as  principal 
Secretary  of  State.  In  Spain  Couíít  de  Flodidablanca 
was  appointed  Pi-ime  Minister  (Febi'uary  19)  in  the 
phice  of  Grdialdl 

The   resignation  of  this    Genoese  Statesman,  more 
.  ^.         tlian  the  other  chano;es,  facilitated  the  sus- 

Negotiations  .  .... 

for  a  Treaty  peusiou  of  hostilities  in  South  Amei'icaand 
of  Limits.        the  negotiation  of  a  new  Ti'eaty  of  Limits. 

This  negotiation  had  already  begun  during  the  ad- 
ministration of  Grlmaldi  while  D.  Francisco  Itíxocen- 
cio  DE  SouzA  Coutinho  was  Ambassador  of  Portusral 
at  Madrid. 

In  1770,  by  order  of  the  King  of  Spain  a  Consulting 

Junta  had  been  formed  to  consider  the  question  of  Limits 

between  the  Spanish  possessions  and  Brazil, 

Spanish  Con-  ,^g  ^^^      ^^  ^^^^^  from  the  followinsr  passacjes 

suiting  Junta.  «^  o  x  o 

of  the  letter  dated  Aranjuez,  June  3,  of 
that  year,  and  addressed  by  Grimaldi  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  of  the  Indies,  D.  José  de  GIlvez  :  ^ 

"  You  are  acquainted  with  the  probability  that  the 
proposed  Congress  of  Paris  will  take  place,  at  which 
Count  de  Aranda  will  i-epresent  the  King,  our  Master, 
while  the  King  of  Portugal  will  be  represented  by  His 
respective  Plenipotentiaries,  together  with  the  Ministers 
who  may  be  appointed  by  Their  Most  Christian  and 
Britannic  Majesties  as  mediating  Princes,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  examining  and  ti-eating  of  the  points  long  since 
contested  between  Spain  and  Portugal  regarding  the 

'  In  the  General  Archives  of  Simancas,  "  Secretaria  de  Estado,  Leg? ,  No. 
7,412,  f.  33." 

The  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  was  legalized  by 
the  Director  of  the  Archives  on  December  2,  1893. 


B  O  UN  DA  RY  QUES  TION.  I  /  3 

Limits  of  the  Dominions  of  Vjotli  Crowns  in  South 
America,  and  that  an  endeavor  may  be  made  to  arrive 
at  a  satisfactory  understanding  by  means  of  which  new 
dissensions  may  for  the  future  be  avoided. 

"  In  order  to  draw  up  the  Instructions  that  will  have 
to  be  given  to  Count  de  Aranda,  I  proposed  at  our 
Ministerial  Conference  of  the  30th  of  last  month  not 
only  the  draft  of  the  negotiation,  considered  under  all 
its  aspects,  but  also  various  doubts  and  difficulties  that 
required  to  be  previously  removed  ;  and  all  this  hav- 
ing seemed  to  you,  no  less  than  the  other  Secretaries 
of  State,  to  be  worthy  of  the  greatest  attention,  and  of 
the  notice  of  the  King,  I  have  duly  informed  His 
Majesty  thereof  by  readinoj,  at  the  last  audience  I  had, 
the  same  paper  in  which  I  conveyed  my  opinion  to  you, 
as  well  as  to  Count  de  Ricla,  D,  Miguel  de  Muzquiz, 
and  to  the  Maequis  Gonzalez   Castejon.     .     .     . 

"  His  Majesty  has  considered  those  words  equally 
well  founded  and  opportune,  and,  in  accoi'dance  with 
them,  thinks  it  indispensable,  as  we  do,  that  a  Junta 
should  be  formed  of  competent  persons  who  may  com- 
bine with  talent,  learning,  and  zeal,  local  hnoivledge  and 
accurate  information  as  to  the  countries  in  dispute  ;  and 
approves  and  commands  that  it  shall  be  composed  of 
Lieutenant  General  D.  Pedeo  de  Ceballos,  the  Mae- 
quis DE  Valdelirios,  the  President  of  the  India 
Council  D.  Antonio  Porliee,  of  Major  General  D. 
ViNCENTE  Doz,  and  of  D.  Francisco  de  Argued  as. 

"  The  King,  therefore,  commands  me  to  inform  you 
of  this,  that  you  may  issue  the  necessary  directions  to 
the  subjects  mentioned,  in  order  that  they  may  proceed 
to  treat  of  the  mattei-  with  due  attention.     .     .     .  " 

The  letter  concludes  in  the  followiui^  manner : 


174  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTIN  E 

"  Persuaded  that  it  will  l)e  of  some  assistance  to  the 
members  of  tlie  Juuta  to  liave  l3efore  them  tlie  Map  of 
South  America,  constructed  an<l  engraved  hy  order 
of  Ills  Jfqjestf/,  as  well  as  the  Dissertation  on  the 
Meridian  of  Demarcation,  written  b}'  D.  Jokge  Juais^ 
and  D.  Ais^TONio  de  Ulloa,  and  [)ublished  in  the  year 
17-49,  I  will  [)lace  at  your  service  five  copies  of  each,  in 
order  that  you  may  distribute  them  as  you  may  think 
proper," 

The  above  document  proves  that  in  the  negotiations 
which  preceded  the  Treaty  of  1777,  the  Cabinet  of 
Madrid  consulted  the  same  Argued  as  who,  as  First 
Coiumissioner,  surveyed  the  Pepiry  and  S.  Antonio  in 
1759.  It  proves  besides  that  the  Map  preferred  for  the 
examination  of  the  question  of  Limits  was  that  of 
South  America,  constructed  and  engraved  by  the 
King's  order  by  Olmedilla. 

These  two  facts  are  of  the  greatest  importance, 
particularly  the  second,  because  the  Map  of  Olmedilla, 
to  which  reference  will  be  made  later  on,  is  one  of  the 
most  conclusive  documents  in  favor  of  the  cause  of 
Brazil. 

From  the  negotiations  between  the  Ambassador  of 
_  ,  ^     Portuo-al,  Souza  Coutinho  and  the  Count 

Treaty  of  S.  °     ' 

Ildefonso,  DE  Floridablanca  resulted  the  Prelimi- 
Oct.  1, 1777.  j^jyy  Treaty  of  Limits  signed  at  San 
Ildefonso  on  October  1,  1777. 

This  Treaty  restored,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  to  the  Noi'thern  part  of  the  basin  of  the 
Amazonas,  the  boundary  line  described  in  that  of  1750, 
but  it  entirely  modified  the  previous  marking  of  the 
Southern  frontier  from  the  sea-coast  to  the  mouth  of 
that  afiluent  of  the  Uruguay.     Portugal  lost  territories 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1/5 

in  the  Rio  Grande  do  Sul  as  well  as  Colónia  do  Sacra- 
mento, Spain  restored  to  her  the  Island  of  Santa 
Catharina. 

The  new  Southern  divisional  line,  after  reaching, 
having  started  from  the  sea,  the  headwaters  of  the 
rivers  flovvinir  to  the  Rio  Grande  and  the  Jacuhy, 
continued  along  them  passing  ovei-  those  of  the  river 
Araricá,  an  affluent  of  tliB  Jacuhy,  and  those  of  the 
Piratini  and  Ybimini  (Yiuimini  or  Ijuhymini),  affluents 
of  the  Uruguay,  and  proceeded  as  far  as  the  left  l>ank 
of  this  river  opposite  the  nioutli  of  the  Pej^iry-Guaçú. 

Article  4  of  the  Treaty  deals  with  this  first  section  of 
the  divisional  line.  The  second  section,  in  which  the 
frontier  of  the  territory  now  contested  is  situated,  is 
described  in  Article  8. 

This  is,  therefore,  the  article  that  must  be  Article  8 

examined.  examined. 

The  two  texts,  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish,  are  as 
follows : 

"  Art.  VIII. — Ficando  "Art.  VIII. — Quedan- 
já  signalados  os  dominies  do  ya  senaladas  las  per- 
de ambas  as  Coroas  até  :  tenencias  de  ambas  Coro- 
a  entrada  do  Rio  Pequiri  nas  hasta  la  entrada  dei 
ou  Pepirí-guaçíi  no  Uru-  Rio  J^equiri  ó  Pepiri- 
guay,  convieram  os  dois  gnazú  en  el  TJrngum,,  se 
Altos  Contratantes  em  han  convenido  los  dos 
que  a  linha  divisória  se-  Altos  Contrayentes  en 
giiirà  aguas  acima  do  dito  que  la  linea  divisória  se- 
Pepiri-guaçâ até  tisna  ori-  guirá  aguas  arriba  de 
gem  principal ;  e  desde  esta  \  dicho  Pepiri  hasta  su  ori- 
peh  mais  alto  do  terreno^  gen  principal ;  y  desde  este 
debaixo  das  regras  dadas  por  lo  mas  alto  dei  terreno, 
no  Artigo  VI,  continuará  .  bajo  las  regíeis  dadas  en  el 


1/6 


BRA  ZIIJA  X-ARGEX  TINE 


a  encontrar  as  correntes  do 
Mio  Santo  Antonio,  que 
desemboca  no  <jrande  de 
Ctirituha,  por  outro  nome 
chamado  Ir/uaçli,  seguindo 
este  aguas  ahai.ro  até  á  sua 
entrada  no  Paraná  pela 
sua  margem  oriental,  e 
continuando  então  aeuas 
acima  do  mesmo  Paraná 
até  donde  se  lhe  ajunta  o 
Rio  Igurei  pela  sua  mar- 
gem Occidental." 


Articulo  VI,  continuará 
á  encontrar  las  corrientes 
dei  Mio  San  Antonio,  que 
desemboca  en  el  grande  de 
Curituba,  que  i^or  otro 
nombre  llaman  Iguazii, 
siguiendo  este  aguas  ahajo 
hasta  su  entrada  en  el 
Paraná  por  su  ribera  ori- 
ental, y  continuando  en- 
tonces  aguas  arriba  dei 
mismo  Paraná  hasta  don- 
de se  le  junta  el  Rio 
Iguréi  por  su  ribera  occi- 
dental." 

Ill  tbe  following  English  translatiou  of  the  two 
texts,  the  geographical  names  written  according  to  the 
orthography  of  the  Spanish  copy  are  given  in  brackets  : 

"Art.  8. — The  dominions  of  both  Crowns  beins' 
already  defined  as  far  as  the  entrance  of  the  Miver 
Pequi ri  or  Pepiri-Gua<;ú  {Peqniri  or  Pepiri-Guazú) 
into  the  Uruguay  (^Uruguai),  i\\Q  two  High  Coutiact- 
ing  Parties  have  agreed  that  the  divisional  line  shall 
follow  up  the  coin-se  of  the  said  Pepiri-Guaçú  {Pe])iri) 
as  far  as  its  pi-iucipal  source;  and  thence  along  the 
highest  ground,  under  the  rules  given  in  Article  VL, 
it  shall  coutinue  until  it  meets  the  waters  of  the  Miver 
Santo  Antonio  (San  Antonio),  which  empties  itself 
into  the  Grande  de  Curituba,  otherwise  named  Iguaçiu 
Iguazii)  running  downwai'ds  along  the  latter  until  it 
enters  the  Paraná  by  its  Eastern  bank,  and  continuing 
thence  up  the  said  Paraná  to  the  point  where  the  river 
Tgurei  (Ignrei)  joins  its  Western  bank." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  IJJ 

As  will  be  seeD,  the  starting  point  of  the  divisional 
line  l^etweeu  the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu  is,  according 
to  Article  8  of  the  Treaty  of  1777,  the  mouth  of 
the  river  Pepirij-Guam  or  Pequiry,  an  affluent  of  the 
right  bank  of  the  Uruguay.  Thence  the  line  runs 
along  the  bed  of  the  same  Pepiry-Guaçú  as  far  as  its 
principal  source,  and  thence  again,  over  the  highest 
ground,  "  under  the  rule  laid  down  in  Article  6,"  it 
goes  on  till  it  meets  the  source  of  the  Rivei'  S.  Antonio, 
down  whose  bed  it  reaches  its  confluence  wâth  the 
Iguaçu. 

Article  6,  to  which  Article  8  refers,  provides  as 
follows : 

"  In  like  manner  as  in  the  foregoing  Article,  there 
shall  be  also  reserved  throuçjhout  the  remainder  of  the 
divisional  line,  both  as  far  as  the  entrance  into  the 
Uruguay  of  the  River  Pepíri-Guaçu  and  in  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  said  line  which  shall  be  specifically 
set  out  in  the  following  Articles,  a  sufficient  space 
between  the  Boundaries  of  the  two  Nations,  although 
it  may  not  be  equal  in  breadth  to  that  of  the  said 
Lakes,  in  which  villages  may  not  be  built  by  either  of 
the  two  parties,  nor  Forts,  Guard-houses,  or  military 
Posts  erected,  so  that  such  spaces  may  be  neutral, 
durable  landmarks  and  siç^nals  beino;  erected  to  make 

O  cr» 

known  to  the  subjects  of  each  Nation  the  spot  beyond 
which  they  are  not  to  pass ;  for  which  pur2>ose  lakes 
and  rivers  shall  be  sought  which  can  serve  as  pei*- 
manent  and  unalterable  limits,  and,  failing  them,  the 
crests  of  the  most  prominent  mountains,  these  and 
their  feet  constituting  the  neutral  and  divisional  zone 
which  may  not  be  entered,  peojjled,  built  upon,  nor 
fortified  by  either  of  the  Nations." 


178 


BK  A  Z/L/A  X-AKGEX  TINE 


This  Article,  as  will  be  seen,  treats  of  the  neutral 
zone  wliii'h,  according  to  the  Treaty,  was  to  be  estab- 
lished along  the  frontier. 

The  Argentine  Government  has  ex[)ressed  surprise 
that  the  Government  of  Brazil  should  accept  Article  8 
while  at  the  same  time  declaring  the  Treaty  annulled. 

It  has  already  been  explained  that  Brazil  accepts 
that  Article  only  because  the  frontier  line  described 
thei'ein  is  the  same  that  is  designated  by  the  utl 
possidetis  of  the  j^eriod  of  the  Independence. 

Neither  does  the  Argentine  Government  consider 
the  whole  Treaty  valid,  seeing  that  it  has  never  attached 
any  importance  to  the  clause  relating  to  the  neutral 
zone. 

Article  6,  therefore,  rejected  both  by  Brazil  and  by 
the  Argentine  Republic,  is   of  no  importance   in   the 
settlement  of  the  present  controversy. 
Treaties  of  ^^     ^^    expedient    to    compare    the    8th 

1750  and  1777  Article  Avliich  the  two  contesting  parties 
compared.  accept,  with  the  corresponding  Article  of 
the  pi'eceding  Ti-eaty  : 


TREATY    OF    1750. 

"  Art.  V.  —  From  the 
mouth  of  the  Ibicui,  the 
Line  shall  run  up  the 
c<jui-se  of  the  Ui'uguay 
until  reaching  the  Hiver 
Pepii'i^  or  Peqxiii,  wliieli 
empties  itself  hi/  tlie  West- 
ern hanh  of  tlie  Urtigvay  / 
and  it  shall  continue  tip  the 
led  of  the  Ptpir'i  as  far 


TREATY    OF  1777. 

"Art.  VÍII.  — The  do- 
minions of  both  Crowns 
being  already  defined  as 
far  as  the  entrance  of  the 
River  Peqidr'i^  or  Pepirl- 
Guacii,  into  the  Uruyiiaij, 
the  two  High  Contracting 
Parties  have  agreed  that 
the  divisional  line  shall  fol- 
low  up  the   course  of  the 


BO  UN  DA  RY  Q  UESTION. 


179 


as  the  principal  source 
thereof ;  from  which  it 
shall  follow  along  the  high- 
est ground  to  the  principal 
head  of  the  nearest  river 
that  may  floio  into  the  Rio 
Grande  de  Curituha,  other- 
wise named  Iguaçu.  The 
Boundary  shall  continue 
along  the  bed  of  the  said 
river  nearest  to  the  source 
of  the  Pepiri^  and  after- 
wards, along  that  of  the 
Iguaqk,  or  Rio  Grande  de 
Curituha,  until  the  point 
where  the  same  Iguaçu 
empties  itself  by  the  East- 
ern bank  of  the  Paraná; 
and  from  that  mouth  it 
shall  go  up  the  course  of 
the  Paraná,  to  the  point 
where  the  Igurey  joins  it 
on  its  Western  bank." 


said  Pepiri-  Guaqii  as  far 
as  its  principal  source; 
and  thence  along  the  high- 
est ground,  under  the  rules 
given  in  Article  VI.,  it 
shall  continue  until  it  meets 
the  waters  of  the  River 
Santo  Antonio,  tvhich  emp- 
ties itself  into  the  Grande  de 
Curituha,  otherivise  named 
Iguaçií,  running  do^jon- 
wards  along  the  latter  un- 
til it  enters  the  Parana  by 
its  Eastern  bank,  and  con- 
tinuing thence  up  the  said 
Paraná  to  the  point  where 
the  River  Igurey  joins  it 
on  its  Western  bank." 


In  determining  the  frontier  between  the  Uruguay 
and  the  Iguaçu,  the  Treaty  of  1750  designated  a  known 
river,  the  Pepiry  or  Pequiry,  and  an  uu-named  affluent 
of  the  Iguaçu.  From  the  principal  headwater  of  the 
Pepiry  the  divisional  line  was  to  pass  on  to  the  princi- 
pal soui'ce  of  the  nearest  affluent  of  the  Iguaçu.  This 
condition  of  neighV)orhood  was  ex|)lained  in  the  In- 
structions of  17Õ8,  according  to  wliich  the  essential 
point  was  that  the  mouth  of  the  affluent  of  the  Iguaçu 


1 8o  BRA  ZILIA  N-ARGEA'  TINE 

should  be  api^roxiniately  in  tlie  same  longitude  as  the 
place  in  which  the  })i'incipal  heatlwater  of  the  Pepiiy 
might  l)e  !>;npposed  to  be  situated.  The  affluent  sought 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  discovered  and  explored  in  1759, 
when  it  received  the  name  of  H.  Antonio. 

Article  8  of  the  Treaty  of  1777  differs 

Differences.  *       •    i  p     i       rr\ 

Ti'oni  Article  õ  of  the  Treaty  of  1750  : 

1)  In  not  presenting  any  comJition  of  neighborhood 
or p/'o-rimiti/  hetxveen  the  tioo  rivers  or  their  headwaters; 

2)  In  determining  by  mime,  not  one,  hut  both  the  rivers, 
indicating  them  clearly  by  the  new  denominations  they 
received  in  1759  and  1760. 

The  affluent  of  the  Iguaçu  is  designated  in  Ai-ticle  8 
by  the  only  name  it  had  after  1759  and 
names  iiuder  whicli  it  appeared  in  all  maps  sub- 

sequent to  that  date  ;  and  the  affluent  of 
the  Uruguay  thus  named  in  diííerent  Articles  of  the 
same  Treaty  of  1777 : 

Art.  III. :  liiver  Pequiri  or  Pepiri-Guaçâ  ( Peqniri 
or  Pepiri-  Guazii)  — Pepiri-  Giiaçú  (Pepiri-  Gvazii) . 

Art.  IV. :  Pepiri-Guaçú  (Pepiri-Guazú). — Pepiri- 
Gnaçú  (Pepiri-Guazú) . 

Alt.  VI.  :  Pepiri-Guaçú  ( PepiriGiiazÍL). 

Art.  VIII. :  Pequiri  or  Pepiri-Guaçíc  (Pequiri  or 
Pepiri-Guazú).     Pepiri- Guaçíi  (Pepiri). 

In  the  Portuguese  copy:  Pepiri-Guaçú,  seven 
times  ;  Pequiry,  twice. 

In  the  Spanish  copy:  Pepiri-Guazú,  six  times; 
Pequiri,  t^vice  ;  and  Pepiri,  once. 

Consequently,  the  two  Governments  recognized  as 
designating  the  same  I'iver  these  three  names  :  Pequiry, 
Pqnry-Guaçú,  and  Pepiry. 

The  Report  of  1892  of  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  l8l 

fairs  of  the  Argentine  Kepublic  asserts  that  j^efyt^tion  of 
the  Treaty  in  using  the  adjective  guaçO  the  Argentine 
Oarsre),  intended  to  desiççnate  a  river  dif-   Report,  1892, 

„  1         -r»      •  T-»         •  £  astotheques- 

ferent  from  the  repiry  or  requiry  ot  tion  of  names. 
17Õ0. 

The  Report  says : 

"Let  the  text  of  the  Treaty  of  1750  be  compared 
with  that  of  1777,  and  it  will  be  seen  at  once,  that  the 
former  gives  as  a  boundary  to  the  East,  in  Misiones,  the 
Kiver  Pequiri  or  Pepiri ;  and  as  this  vague  denomina- 
tion has  produced  confusion  in  the  minds  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  1759,  the  second  Treaty  defined  the  river, 
qualifying  it  from  its  principal  feature  of  being  a  large 
Q'iver^  and  not  a  small  stream  or  rivulet. 

"Thus  the  Treaty  of  1777  definitely  decides  the 
point,  transferring  the  boundary  to  the  system  of  large 
or  Easterly  iHvers,  above  the  Uruguay  Pita." 

This  system  of  Easterly  rivers  was  not  yet  invented 
when  the  Treaty  of  1777  was  written.  Kor  ^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^ 
did  the  f/^//Y/  Uruguay  Pita  to  which  the     Eastern  rivers 

^         ^ ^  an  anachronism 

JReport  refers  then  exist.     The  Treaty  of  in  1777. 

1777  does  not  speak  of  any  river  of  that 

name. 

In  another  place  (pg.  109  and  110)  this  question  of 
the  adjectives  gtiaçú  (large)  and  mini  (small),  has  been 
explained,  showing  that  by  the  fact  that  in  1759  the 
name  of  Pepiry-Mini  had  been  given  to  an  affluent  of 
the  old  Pepiry,  the  principal  river  became  entitled  to 
the  addition  of  guaçá  to  its  name. 

It  has  also  been  proved  by  the  Map  appended  to  the 
Diary  of  the  First  Demarcators,  that  from 

Maps  of  1760.  "J 

1760  the  old  Pepiiy  or  Peipiiry  came  to  be 
called  Pepiry-Guaçà  (pg.  109-111). 


1 82  BKAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Under  this  name  it  alivady  appears  on  the  maps 
signed  at  S.  Nicolas  of  Missions  on  A])ril  8,  1760,  by 
the  Comniissionei'S  of  the  first  demarcation.  The  proof 
that  from  17(')<>  the  name  Pepivy-Guaçúh^ow^^  to  the 
river  surveyed  in  1759  is  in  the  Map  referred  to,  which, 
with  the  oriiiinal  Diary,  is  submitted  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  xVrljiti'ator.^ 

Under  the  same  name  of  Pcpií-ij-Guaçú,  the  old 
Pepiry  or  Pequiry  surveyed  in  1759  appears  in  the  fol- 
lowing maps  (besides  other  manuscri[>t  maps)  anterior 
to  the  Treaty  of  1777  : — 

1)  South  America,  by  Sylveika  Peixoto,  1768, 
Manuscript  ^ : 

2 )  Part  of  South  Ainerica,  by  Alexandre  J.  Mon- 
tanha, 1778,  Manuscript^; 

3)  Soutlt  Ai?ierica,  hy  Omiedilla,  1775,  engraved  at 
Madrid. 

Under  the  name  of  Pequiri,  in  the  two 
PiquiryinMii-  f^n^wiug  ST)anish  Maiis  :— 

lau  s  Maps.  ox  i 

1768,  1770.  -1)   General  Capta itici/ of  the  lilver  Plate, 

by  Francisco  Millau,  1768,  Manuscript^; 

'  Colored  fac-simile  on  the  scale  of  the  original,  No.  12  A,  in  Vol.  VI.  Re- 
duced fac-simile  No.  13,  Vol.  V. 

''Partial  reproduction  under  No.  T5  A,  Vol.  VI.  Its  title  is:  "Carta 
Geographica  /da/  America  Meridional  /  For  /  Antonio  Martins  da  Syl- 
VEiRA  Peixoto.     .     .     ."     Dated  Villa  Rica  (now  Ouro- Preto),  1768. 

'  Reproduction  of  a  part  of  this  Map,  No.  16  A,  in  Vol.  VI.  Title : 
"  Mappa  GeographicO  /  i/t'  hua parte  da  America  Meridional  desde  0  Trópico 
de  Capricórnio  té  a  barra  do  Rio  da  Prata  /  .  .  .  "  By  ALEXANDRE  JOSÉ 
Montanha,  Captain  of  Engineers.     Year  1773. 

■•  The  original  is  kept  in  the  Department  of  State  at  Madrid.  The  Brazilian 
Special  Mission  presents  an  authenticated  copy  ;  a  reduced  fac-simile  of  the 
whole  Map,  under  No.  13  A  (Vol.  VI.)  ;  and  a  fac-simile  of  a  part  in  which  is 
included  the  territory  now  contested.  This  partial  reproduction  is  numbered 
15  in  Vol.  v.,  and  is  represented  with  the  coloring  of  the  original.  Title: 
"  Plano  /  de  la  Capit.\nia  Genera/  de  las  tres  Provindas  del  /  Rio  de  la 
Plata,  Paraguay,  Tticnman  /  del  mando  del  Hx^^  Seiior  D?*  Fran'^"  Bvcareli 
Y  Vrsva  /  .  .  .  A.NO  lyòS.  /  .  .  .  Echo  por  el  Teniente  de  Navio  de  la 
Real  Arvwda  D^'   FRANCISCO  MiLLAU  Y  MaRAVAL." 


BOUNDARY   QUESTWÁ^.  I  83 

5)  Territory  of  Montevideo  and  of  tlie  liio  Grande, 
by  the  same  F.  Millau,  1770,  Manuscript/ 

The  author  of  these  two  last  maps  is  the  same  Span- 
ish geographer  ^vho  took  pai-t  in  the  survey  of  1759. 
Both  the  maps  shoukl  be  considered  as  official,  and 
that  of  1770  even  bears  a  declaration  that  it  was  made 
by  order  of  Bucareli,  Captain  General  of  the  Provinces 
of  the  River  Plate.  The  boundary  line  proposed  in  it 
passes  along  the  Pequiri  and  S.  Antonio  demarcated 
in  1759. 

The  Map  of  1768  by  Millau  (Xo.  15,  Vol.  V.)  is 
also  very  interestinç^,  because  it  shows  the  boundaries 
of  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  occupation  of  that  time 
and  the  territories  inhabited  by  the  Wild  Indians, 

In  the  two  maps,  the  Pequiri  (Pepiry-Guaçú)  and 
the  S.  yl/i^omo  are  the  rivers  demarcated  in  1759.  The 
Uruguay-Pita  is  the  second  river  of  tliat  name,  that  is 
to  say,  the  present  Guarita,  which  was  visited  that  year 
by  the  first  demarcators. 

These  maps  of  Millau,  maintaining  the  name  of 
Pequiry,  and  that  of  Olíiedilla  giving  to  the  old 
Pepiry  or  Pequiry  the  name  of  Pepiry-Guaçu  adopted 
in  the  official  maps  dated  1760,  explain  the  double  de- 
nomination which  is  read  in  the  Treaty  of  1777. 

The  two  authorities,  Olmedilla  and  Millau,  are 
Spaniards  and  cannot  be  impuo;ned  by  the 

}  ,.        -r.  1  -•  '  Olmedilla  and 

Argentine  Kepublic.  Millau. 

The  river  Pepiry-Guaçú  or  Pequiry  and 
the  S.  Antonio  in  the  maps  of  those  official  geographers 

'  Authenticated  copy  of  the  original  in  the  hydrographical  Department  at 
Madrid.  Title  :  "  ^IhVKj  que  comprehende  el  I  Pays,  que  se  extiende  por  la  Cos  \  ta 
de  el  Mar,  entre  la  Ciudad  de  Montevideo  y  el  Riogrande  .  .  .  Hecho  de 
orden  de  el Ex^°  Senor  D^  Francisco  Bucareli  y  Ursua,  siendo  Capitan  gen- 
eral de  las  Provindas  de  el  Rio  de  la  Plata,  por  el  Teniente  de  Navio  de  la  Real 
Armada,  D^  FRANCISCO  Millau  Cosmógrafo  de  S.  M.  en  el  Afio  de  1770." 


I  84  BRA  ZILIA  X-A RGEN  TINE 

are  those  of  175U,  and,  therefore,  the  rivers  i-eferred  to 
by  Count  de  Flokidablanca,  when  he  drew  up  Article 
8  of  the  Treaty  of  1777,  were  the  same  as  those  of 
1759,  that  is  to  say,  the  two  rivers  which  form  the 
present  boundary  of  Brazil  \\\i\\  tlie  Argentine 
Kepublic. 

It  is  an  anachronism  to  attribute  to  the  neííotiators 
of  the  Treaty  of  1777  the  "system  of  Easterly  rivers" 
which  was  only  created  in  1789  by  the  Spanish  Com- 
missioners. The  question  of  names  and  adjectives  is 
explained  by  the  official  Spanish  maps  and  by  the 
examples  already  quoted,  which  could  be  multiplied, 
of  rivers  (and  even  rivulets)  ^vhich  are  (pialified  as 
guaçús  because  they  have  as  affluents  a  mii'iiii  or 
Qiiini. 

Another  graphic  proof,  and  a  Spanish  one,  that, 
when  the  Treaty  was  signed,  it  was  understood  that 
Map  of  Azara  tile  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  the  S.  Antonio  w^ere 
of  1787-  the  two  rivers  surveyed  in  1759,  is  found 

in  the  Ma})  of  Paraguay  of  1787  by  D.  Felix  de 
AzARA.^  In  this  Map  the  Brazilian  Pepiry-Guaçú  has 
the  following  names : 

The  principal  river,  " i?.  Pí/;/ry,"  and  "it.  Fepiry- 
Guazá'''' ;  the  largest  Eastern  affluent,  "it.  Peqniri  or 
Peiyiry-Miniy 

AzAKA  uses,  therefore,  the  thi'ee  names:  Pejyiry, 
Pequiry,  and  Pepiry-Guaçú. 

From  these  cartographical  documents,  all  of  the 
greatest  importance  in  the  examination  of  the    pres- 


'  Partial  fac-simile  No.  17  in  Vol.  V.  ;  fac-simile  of  the  whole  map,  No.  18  A 
Vol.  VI.  The  document  belongs  to  the  Department  of  State  in  Madrid. 
Title  :  "  Carta  Espherica,  à  reducida  de  las  Provindas  del  Paraguay,  y  / 
Misiones  Guaranis,  con  el  distrito  de  Cor rienies."  It  is  dated,  "  Assumpcion 
del  Paraguay,  August  30,  i-ji"]."  It  was  presented  by  D.  Felix  uk  Azara  to 
D.  Joseph  Nicol.a.s  de  Azara. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1 85 

ent  litigation,  the  most  valuable  is  tbe  ^^^  ^^^^  .^_ 
Map  of  ^outli  America  by  D.  Juax  de  portant  Map 
LA    Cruz  Cano  y  Olmedilla/   construct-   is  that  of  oi- 

11  1  £   xi        -ir-       medillaofi777. 

ed  and  engraved  by  order  ot  the  King 
of  Spain,  and  delivered  to  the  Consulting  Junta  ap- 
pointed in  the  following  year  to  investi-  The  Map  of oi- 
gate  the  question  of  boundaries  between  ^^^^^^^j"^^;";!;^ 
Brazil  and  the  Spanish  possessions,  as  has  Treaty  of  :775. 
already  been  shown.' 

This  Map  was  also  used  by  Count  de  Florid a- 
BLANCA,  Principal  Secretary  of  State  and  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  the  King  of  Spain,  in  the  negotiations 
which  resulted  in  the  Treaty  of  October  1,  1777. 

D?  Luis  Dominguez  confirms  this  in  the  following 
passage  of  his  Historia  Argentina  : 

"  The  drawins:  of  this  immense  boundary  line  had 
been  made  according  to  the  Map  published  at  Madrid 
in  1775  by  D.  Juan  de  la  Cruz  Cano  y  Olmedllla, 
constructed  from  the  geodesical  surveys  of  the  demar- 
cators  under  the  Treaty  of  1750."  ^ 

The  part  of  this  Map  in  which  the  contested  terri- 
tory is  included,  is  reproduced  under  ^o.  16  in  Vol.  V. 
In  the  same  Vol.,  under  No.  24,  the  comparison  of  this 
Map  with  that  of  the  Brazilian- Argentine  Joint  Com- 
mission is  made  graphically. 

This  comparison  renders  any  commentary  unneces- 
sai'y, 

1  "  Mapa  Geográfico  /  de  /America  Meridional/ dispuesto  y  gravado 
/  POR  DN  Juan  de  la  Cruz  Cano  y  Olmedilla,  Geogfo  pensço  de  S.  M./ 
individuo  de  la  R'.  Academia  de  S'.'  Fernando,  y  de  la  Sociedad  Bascoitgada  de 
los  Amigos  del  Pais ;  /  teniendo presentes  vários  Mapas  y  noticias  originales  j 
con  arreglo  d  Observaciones  astronómicas,  /  Ano  de  IJJJ." 

*  Official  letter  of  June  3,  1776,  of  the  First  Secretary  of  State  of  Spain,  the 
Marquis  di  Grimaldi  (a  document  already  transcribed,  page  172-174). 

2  P.  306  of  the  4th  Edition.  Dr.  Dominguez  was  the  Argentine  Minister  in 
Brazil  charged  with  the  discussion  of  this  boundary  question,  and  is  now  the 
Argentine  Minister  in  London. 


I  86  Bh'A  ZILIA N-A  R GEX  TINE 

The  Jlap  of  South  America  and  its  autlior  have  re- 
cently been  severely  criticised  in  the  press  of  Biienos- 
„    ,  Aires    by    an    ilhistrions    liolitician/    who 

Reply  to  recent  >'  i  ' 

Argentine  aiie-    donbtlcss  wrote  tluit  purt  of  his  work  from 

gations.  ,  II*  •    1  1  • 

notes  comnuinicated  to  liim,  without  having 
had  time  to  verify  personally  the  accuracy  of  the  texts 
he  quoted. 

It  is  a  fact  that  a  Spanish  philologist,  speaking  of 
Ol^íedilla,  mentioned  him  only  as  an  engraver.^  But 
this  only  j^roves  that  the  philologist  did  not  study  the 
Histoiy  of  his  country  seriously.  The  very  Map  of 
oimediiiawas  Soutli  Auierica  is  there  to  pi'ove  that  as 
appointed  Chief   ^.^j,]     ^^g  27^-5  Olmedilla  had  the  official 

Cosmographer  «^ 

of  Spain.  title  of  Geographer.     Years  afterwards  he 

was  appointed  Chief  Cosniogi'apher  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Spain,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  f()llo\ving  passage  of 
an  official  letter  of  October  6,  1790,  by  the  Spanish 
Commissioner  Alveak  : 

"...  you  quote  the  Map  of  America  by  d'Anville 
with  i-eference  to  the  obsei'vations  of  La  Condamine, 
Bougek,  and  the  one  'printed  in  Madrid  hi/  the  Ch.ief 
Cosmographer  of  the  Kingdom^  D.  Juan  de  la 
Cruz.  .  .  ."^ 

The  Spanish  Commissioners  charged  with  the  de- 
The  Spanish       iiun'cation  took  copies  of  this  Map,  "  eon- 

Commissioners  ,,7  7  77  7  p       n- 

took  with  them  ^trncted  and  engraved  by  order  of  His 
copiesofthe       Majesfu''  as  was  stated  on  June  3,  1776, 

Map  of  Olmedil-  t/         e/ '  77 

*■  by  Minister  the  Makquis  di  Grimaldi. 

'  Dr.  Zeballos,  Misiones,   §§  IX.,  X.,  and  XI. 

'  Roque  Barci.\,  author  of  the  Primer  Dictionario  General  Etyviologico  de 
la  Lengua  Espaiiola,  Madrid,  1881.  In  this  "Etymological  Dictionary  of 
the  Spanish  Language"  are  to  be  found  the  biographical  notes  recently  quoted 
to  show  that  Olmedii.la  was  an  engraver,  but  not  a  geographer. 

'  This  document  was  published  by  Militon  Gonzalez,  one  of  the  sup- 
porters of  the  Argentine  cause,  in  his  edition  of  the  Diary  of  Cabrer  (Vol.  III., 
P-  39)- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1 87 

In  the  official  correspondence  of  these  Commissioners, 
or  in  works  written  by  them  on  the  second  delimitation 
survey,  references  are  made  to  the  Map  of  Olmedilla, 
or  of  JuAX  DE  LA  Cruz,  as  this  geographer  was  more 
commonly  called. 

In  Cabeer  this  passage  may  be  read  :  "...  feat- 
ures by  which  it  is  characterized  and  distinguished  in 
the  printed  Plans,  especially  the  large  Map  of  this 
America  by  the  Geographer  JRoyal^  D.  Juan  de  la 
Cruz."^ 

In  OyIrvide  :  "...  and  from  all  this  convinced 
that  this  river  is  called  Uruguai-Mini,  which  our 
geographer  D,  Juan  de  la  Cruz  places  in  his  Map 
printed  at  Madrid  in  1775."^ 

In  an  official  letter  of  February  10,  1789,  from  the 
Principal  Spanish  Commissioner,  Varela,  may  be 
read  :  "  I).  Juan  de  la  Cruz,  Geograpjher  to  His 
Majesty  ..." 

It  has  been  asserted  that,  in  the  controversy  relating 
to  the  river  Igurey,  the  Map  of  Olmedilla  was  never 
quoted,  nevertheless,  in  the  Metiioria  de  la  Linea  di- 
visória by  Lastarria  tlie  following  passage  in  which 
the  author  speaks  of  the  question  of  the  Igurey  occurs  : 
"...  lihe  the  one  of  South  America  puhlislied.hy  D. 
Juan  de  la  Cruz,  two  years  before  the  Preliminary 
Treaty  of  1777,  and  accoixling  to  the  maps  constructed 
by  the  Spanish  and  Poi'tuguese  Commissioners  under  the 
Treaty  of  1750.  .  .  .  "^  And  further  on:  "...  the 
large  Map  of  South  Americct  by  oar  Cosmographer 
D.  Juan  de  la  Cruz  which  has  been  quoted.'" 

'  Cabrer,  Diário  de  la  Segunda  Subdivision,  Manuscript,  p.  II2  of  Vol.  II., 
and  p.  349  of  Vol.  II.  in  the  edition  of  Militon  Gonzalez. 
*  Oyárvidr,  Memoria,  in  Calvo,  Recuei  I  de  Traités,  IX.,  283. 
'  Lastarria,  in  Calvo,  IV.,  331. 

■•  Ibidem,  372. 


1 88  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Another  Spanish  Commissioner,  D,  Felix  de  Azaka, 
wrote  tlie  following  : 

"I  have  copied  all  those  rivers  and  the 

Opinion  of  Azara  . 

on  the  Map  of     coRsts  counected  with  them  tVotn  the  Map 

Olmedilla.  o      -i-^  T  /-i  i      • 

ot  Dox  JuAX  DE  LA  Ckuz,  eugraved  m 
1775.  Thin  Map  h  rightly  held  to  he  the  hest  of  South 
A  me  vicar  ^ 

Many  opinions  of  European  Americanists  could  be 
adduced.     D'Ayezac    said  :      "      .      .      .      the    most 

valued  maiis,  such  as  those  of  d'Axville, 

Other  quotations. 

D'Avezac,  Hum-   aud   JeAN    DE    LA   CrUZ.        ..."  '        Aud 

the  great  Humboldt  :  "  Almost  all  the 
maps  of  South  America  whicli  have  appeared  since  the 
year  1775  are,  in  what  regai'ds  the  interior  of  the  country 
comprised  between  the  steppes  of  Venezuela  and  tlie 
river  of  the  Amazonas,  between  the  Eastern  back  of  the 
Andes  and  the  coast  of  Cayenne,  a  simple  copy  of  the 
great  Spanish  map  of  La  Cruz  Olmedilla:'^ 

The  copy  of  the  Map  of  Olmedilla,  which  Hum- 
boldt had  during  his  travels  in  America,  is  exhibited 

in  the  principal  i"Oom  of  the  American  Geo- 
oime^'din^  which  graphical  Society,  at  New  York.  On  the 
belonged  to         lower  Dart  of  the  frame  may  be  read  the 

Humboldt.  1  J 

following:  "The  Map  used  by  Hu.aiboldt 
in  exploring  South  America,  with  his  autograph." 

On  February  23,  1802,  D.  Francisco  Requexa,  who 
was  also  one  of  the  Spanish  Commissioners  in  the  de- 
marcation of  limits,   made  the    following  statement : 

"  This  work,  which  was  printed  in  1775,  is 

Opinion  of  Re-  i  -vt       •  i  •  nr- 

quena  regarding  au   honor  to  the  JNatiou,  to  the  wise  Min- 
ister who  promoted  it,  and  to  the  author 

'  Felix  de  Azara,  Voyages,  Vol.  I.,  p.  12. 
'  D'Avezac,  Observations  Gi'ographiqties,  Paris,  1857,  p.  129. 
'  Humboldt,  Personal  Narrative  of  Travels  to  the  Equinoctial  Regions  of 
America,  London,  1853,  ^ol-  HI.,  p.  28. 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  1  89 

himself,  on  account  of  the  minuteness  of  detail  and  the 
completeness  with  which  he  executed  the  Map  .  .  . 
At  the  time  when  the  Map  was  published,  none  more 
accurate  could  be  made."  ^ 

Ol:medilla  worked  at  this  Map  for  many  years,  and 
consulted  all  the  documents  in  the  possession  of  the 
Spanish   Government.      On    December  8, 

,  ••IT  11  Documents 

1767,  in  a  communication  addi'essed  to  the  consulted  by 
Maequis  di  Grdialdi,  he  said  : 

"  Sir. — Dox  JuA^  DE  LA  Cruz  Caxo  y  Olmedilla,  a 
Pensioner  of  His  Majesty,  and  a  Member  of  His  Royal 
Academy  of  San  Fernando,  says, — that  his  honor  being 
engaged  by  the  confidence  placed  in  him  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency when  you  were  pleased  to  command  him  to 
execute  the  Map  of  South  America,  he  cannot  do  less 
than  state  a  second  time  what  occurs  to  him  upon  the 
subject  in  order  that  he  may  be  successful  in  his 
endeavor  to  serve  the  King  and  Your  Excellency. 
Moved,  therefore,  by  that  incentive  which  should  in- 
spire a  sou  of  our  Country,  and  unwilling  to  limit  him- 
self to  merely  correcting  the  Map  of  Don  Francisco 
MiLLA  u  V  Mara  val  ;  he  has  found  himself  under  the 
necessity  of  constructing  another  and  a  new  one  on  a 
different  projection  (although  of  the  same  dimensions 
on  account  of  the  size  of  the  plates)  ivith  all  the  valu- 
able Plans  zvhich  were  taken  for  this  purpose  fi'om 
the  Department  of  the  Indies,  which  being  insufficient, 

•  Report  presented  by  D.  Francisco  Requexa  in  fulfilment  of  a  Royal  Or- 
der (Archives  of  Alcala  de  Henares). 

Another  authority  above  suspicion  for  the  Argentines  is  D.  Pedro  de 
Angelis,  in  his  introduction  to  the  Dcscripcion  de  Patagonia  by  Falkner. 
Angelis  gives  as  a  proof  of  the  importance  of  that  work  the  fact  that  it  was 
used  by  Olmedilla  in  the  Map  of  South  America,  and  said,  in  1835,  that  to 
that  date  he  had  not  seen  anything  that  could  throw  any  doubt  on  the  value  of 
the  same  Map  (Angelis,  Colleccion  de  Documentos,  &c..  Vol.  I.,  p.  vi.,  of  the 
Introduction  referred  to,  Buenos-Aires,  1835). 


190  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

altliuui;li  there  are  sixty-two  of  them,  it  would  be  ad- 
visable that  Your  Excellency  should  request  Don 
Manuel  Joseph  Ay  ala,  liecord  Keeper  of  the  said 
Department,  to  allow  those  he  has  to  be  used  ,  .  ." 
Gratuity  paid  ^\\<à    work   liaviug    been    finished,    this 

to  oimediiia  by    u-eotTrapher  and  engraver  was  rewarded  by 

Royal  Order.  O        O        I  C  J 

1776.  the  King,  as   appears   from  the  following 

document : 

"Palace,  April  7,  1776. — To  Dox  Francisco  Ma- 
nuel DE  Mena. — The  Kins:  has  determined  that  out  of 
the  returns  of  tlie  Gazeta  and  Mei'curio,  a  gratuity  of 
six  thousand  reales  de  vellon  shall  be  paid  to  Don 
Juan  de  la  Cruz  in  consideration  of  the  care  and  ac- 
curacy ivith  wliich  he  lias  constructed  and  engraved  the 
Map  of  South  America.     .     .     ." ' 

Olmedilla  was  at  the  same  time  a  geographer  and 
an  engravei",  but  Mercator,  Hondius,  and  many  others 
were  also  geogi'aphei's  and  engravers. 

In  his  Map  of  1775  there  ai'e  certainly  many  erroi'S, 
but  the  same  may  be  said  of  all  maps  of  South  Amer- 
ica subsequent    to  his,  even    of   the  most 

Olmedilla's  Map  p         n        l 

and  the  Brazilian  recent.  U  util  propcr  surveys  01  all  the 
interior  shall  have  l)een  made, — an  under- 
taking which  it  will  require  many  generations  to  ac- 
complish,— it  will  be  impossible  to  construct  strictly 
accurate  maps.  As  to  the  one  now  i-ef erred  to,  Brazil 
only  has  to  consider  these  points: 

1st.  That  it  is  an  official  Spanish  Map; 

2d.  That  it  was  the  Map  used  by  the  Plenipotentiary 
of  Spain  in  the  negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  1777,  and 

'  This  document  and  the  preceding  one  are  in  the  Archives  of  Alcala  de 
Henares.  The  Brazilian  Special  Mission  has  copies  of  these  and  of  many 
others  relating  to  the  Map  of  South  America,  constructed  and  engraved  by 
Olmedilla. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  I9I 

that  it  was  given  by  the  Spanish  Government  to  its 
demarcatino;  Commissioners ; 

3d.  That  in  it  the  Pepiíy-Guaçú  and  the  S.  Antonio 
are  the  rivers  forming  the  present  boundary  between 
Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Republic^; 

4th.  That  tlie  rivers  of  the  Argentine  pretension  are 
much  to  the  East  of  the  Pepirj-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio 
of  the  official  Spanish  Map. 

An  examination  of  the  Map  of  Olmedilla  will  show 
that  this  geographer  corrected  the  mistake  of  Millau 
with  regard  to  the  proximity  of  the  sources  oimediiia  cor- 
of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio.  As  «"ects  Miiiau's 
has  been  said,  Millau,  in  1759,  mistook  as      ^«,„:„„tt,J 

'  "  "  cerning  the 

the  source  of  the  Pepiry  one  of  the  headwaters  of 
branches  of  the  Uruguahy,  and  for  this  ^^^  Pepiry. 
reason,  he  only  found  between  the  two  a  distance  of 
694  metres,  or  ^  of  a  mile.     In   the  Map  ^. 

'  á  i    Distance  between 

of  Olmedilla  the  distance  separating  the  ^^e  sources  of  the 
sources  of  the  Pepiry  from  those  of  the  Antonioaccording 
S.  Antonio  is  about  17,500  metres,  or  ^  to  oimedina. 
miles.  Whether  by  accident,  or  as  the  result  of 
reliable  information  obtained  after  the  first  demaj'ca- 
tion,  it  is  certain  that  when  the  Treaty  of  1777  was 
concluded,  the  Spanish  Government  already  knew  from 
this  Map  that  the  headwaters  of  the  two  rivei's  were 
separated  from  one  another  by  that  distance. 

'  In  the  pamphlet  iMisioiies,  Dr.  Zeballos  censures  Olmedilla,  saying  that 
in  1775  he  was  ignorant  of  the  Treaty  of  1761,  because  he  drew  the  boundary 
along  the  Pepiry  and  the  S.  Antonio.  This  censure  is  another  proof  that  when 
the  distinguished  Argentine  diplomatist  wrote  this  part  of  his  pamphlet  he  was 
guided  by  notes  that  were  given  to  him,  and  without  having  seen  some  docu- 
ments he  quoted.  Olmedilla  limited  himself  to  locating  the  Pepiry-Guaçú 
and  the  S.  Antonio  in  their  proper  places,  without  drawing  any  boundary  along 
them.  The  challenged  geographer  was  acquainted  with  the  Treaty  of  1761, 
and,  like  a  good  Spaniard,  he  drew  upon  his  Map  the  line  of  Tordesillas, 
which  Grimaldi  wished  to  make  effective. 


192  BN  AZII. I  AX-ARGENTINE 

Tlie  fact  is  wortliy  of  luention  here  only  because  the 

supporters  of  tlie  Argentine  cause  attach  great  impor- 

,  taiice  to  tliis  questit)U  of  the  proximity  of 

The  Treaty  of    ,         ,         ,  |p,  ,.  /  Í       . 

1777  and  the  heaclwatei's.  1  he  question,  however,  IS  01 
Instructions  do  j^^  importance  whatever.  The  fii'st  Treaty 
the  headwaters  ^""^  ^^^*^  establish  a  Standard  of  measure- 
of  the  two  meut  for  the  distance  between  the  head- 
nvers.  waters  of  the  rivers  which  serve  as  boun- 

daries flowing  in  opposite  directions,  and  tlie  Treaty  of 
1777  designates  by  their  names  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and 
the  S.  Antonio  without  laying  down  an)''  condition 
whatever  as  to  the  proximity  of  their  headwaters. 
Nor  do  the  Instiiictions  issued  to  the  Commissioners 
mention  the  sources  of  the  two  rivers  :  they  only  give 
directions  as  to  the  positions  of  their  mouths. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  proper  to  repeat  here  that  the  Bra- 
zilian-Argentine Joint  Commission  ascertained  in  1887 
Distance  ac-     that,  in  a  Straight  line,  it  is  17,400  metres, 
cording  to  the   qy  nearly    9^    miles,    between    the    head- 
razi  lan-  r-       ^^^j.g  ^^  ^jj^  Pepirv-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio, 

gentine  Joint  ^  i.      J  ^   ^  7 

Commission,  that  is  to  Say,  the  same  distance  that  can 
be  measured  on  the  Map  of  Olmedilla. 

The  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  two  Govern- 
ments  for   this   demarcation    were,  according   to   the 
Treaty,  to   establish   the    boundary   along 

The  demarca-    .-i  •  n       •        /^  ^  i     c?      a  „í. 

^.     -  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guacu  and   b.  Antonio, 

tion  Commis-  v      J  ^  '. 

sioners  re-  and  uot  by  otlicr  rivers.  Article  10  of 
ceived  limited  ^|j^  Treaty  allowed  the  Commissioners  to 

powers.  ''  f  \         P  • 

clioose  on  the  spot,  tor  the  irontier  run- 
nins^  between  the  Jaurii  and  the  Guaporé,  in  Matto 
Grosso,  such  divisional  line  as  might  seem  to  them 
most  suitable  ^ ;  but  the  sanction  was  limited  to  that 
part  of  the  frontier. 

'  Portuguese  text  of  this  lo'!?  Article,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  84;  English  translation, 
Vol.  III.,  p.  90. 


BO  UN  DA  R  Y  Q  UES  TION.  1 93 

The  Instructions  issued  by  the  Spanish  Government 
for  this  demarcation  defined  with  the  gi-eatest  clearness 
the  positions  of  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçú  Spanish  in- 
and  S.  Antonio.  structions, 

The  first  is  the  Eoijal  Instruction  dated  '778, 1779. 
Araujuez,  June  6,  1778,  and  signed  by  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  Indies,  D.  Josef  de  Gálvez/ 

This  document  reproduced  almost  vrord  for  word  the 
Memorandum  of  May  25, 1778,  and  signed  by  Cou^n't  de 
Florid  ABLAXCA  to  thePortuguese  AmbassadoratMadrid. 

The  second  Instruction,  which  was  much  more  de- 
tailed, Avas  drawn  up  by  General  Vertiz,  Viceroy  of 
the  Provinces  of  the  River  Plate,  and  was  approved  by 
Carlos  III.  on  January  12, 1779.  Its  title  is :  Piano  para 
exectttar  la  Demarcacion  de  esta  America  ( Plan  for 
the  execution  of  the  demarcation  in  this  America)? 

The  First  Division  of  the  Commissioners  was  charged 
with  the  demarcation  of  the  Southern  frontier  from  the 
sea-coast  to  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Paraná.  It  was 
divided  into  two  Subdivisions  or  Parties. 

The  P'  Party  was  to  begin  its  labors  at  the  Chuy 
stream,  near  the  sea,  and  to  conclude  them  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Uruguay,  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Pe- 
piry-Guaçú. To  the  Second  Pai'ty  was  allotted  the  de- 
marcation of  the  frontier  from  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  to  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Pai'ana. 

The  Royal  Instruction  of  June  6,  1778,  treating  of 
the  First  Division,  directed  as  follows: 

T-»  •  1      •  1  1  •  Quotation 

"But  considering  that  the  work  ot  from  the  Span- 
this  Division  as  far  as  the  foot  of  ish  Royal  in- 
the    Great    Falls   of    the    river    Paraná  ^  ^^^ '°"' 

*  Transcribed  in  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  101-107  ;  translated  into  English  in  Vol.  III., 
pp.  107-114. 

^  Transcribed  in  full  in  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  108-126  ;  and  translated  into  English 
in  Vol.  III.,  pp.  I15-134. 


194  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

may  be  inipracticiible  in  the  teiius  proposed  by  the 
Court  of  Lisbon,  through  tliick  woods  without  any 
track,  and  throiigJi  rivers  of  short  navigation,  the 
Pcpiri-guazii  and  San  Antonio,  distant  from  all  set- 
tlements that  could  give  them  a7iy  help  ;  His  Majesty 
has  resolved  that  this  Party,  after  having  gone  a  part 
of  the  way  togetliei",  sliall  divide  itself,  forming  t^vo 
subdivisions,  each  composed  of  one  Commissioner,  one 
Guide,  and  half  of  their  followers,  both  Spanish  and 
Portuguese ;  and  that  one  shall  continue  by  the  crest- 
line  of  the  watersheds  between  the  river-basins  of  the 
Uruguay,  on  the  West,  and  of  the  Yacuy,  on  the  East, 
until  it  arrives  at  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiri-guazu,  and 
that  the  other  subdivision  shall  start  from  the  i-iver 
Ybiciiy,  which  has  its  soiii'ce  in  and  passes  by  the  Monte 
Grande,  and,  proceeding  through  the  Villages  (Pueblos) 
of  Misiónes,  as  fai*  as  that  of  Candelária  or  that  of  Cor- 
pus, the  last  of  those  on  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Paraná, 
//  shall  asce7id  it  in  boats  as  far  as  the  foot  of  the  Salto 
(Falls)  of  the  river  Yguazn  or  Cnritiba,  which  is  dis- 
tant three  leagues  from  its  mouth  in  the  Paraná  ;  and 
that  hauling  by  its  Norther7i  bank  the  medium-sized 
canoes  it  may  carry,  or  building  nezv  ones  above  the 
Salto,  it  shall  navimte  in  them  as  far  as  the 

S.  Antonio,  the  <3  -^ 

second  southern  rlvcr  Sau  Autofiio,  whlch  is  the  second  that 

affluent  of  the  .  7       <—  /  •  /  1  • 

iguaço  above  cutcrs  it  ou  the  Southern  side  ;  and goi7ig  tip 
this  river  as  far  as  its  waters  will  allow, 
shall  ejideavor  to  survey  its  source  and  to  connect  it  with 
the  Pepiri-guazu,  whose  mouth  the  First  Division  will 
already  have  surveyed ;  and  on  its  return  it  shall  lay 
dow7i  the  De7narcatio7i  fro7n  the  mouth  of  the  Iguazii  to 
the  foot  of  the  Salto  Grande  (Great  Falls )  of  the  river 
Para7tá,   Í7i  co7ifo7'mity  zuith   Article  the  8th  of  the 


B  O  UN  D  A  RY  QUES  TION.  I Q  5 

Treat  [I  ^  if  they  do  not  tliiiik  it  more  opportune  to  do  this 
hefore  entering  the  Iguazúy 

The  river  S.  Antonio,  according  to  this  Instruction, 
is  tlie  second  ahove  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Iguaçu. 

Tlierefoi'e,  the  river  S.  Antonio  is  the  present  boun- 
dary of  Bi'azil,  and  not  the  Jangada  (San  Antonio 
Guazú)  as  asserted  by  the  Argentine  Republic,  seeing 
that  between  the  Falls  and  the  Jangada  there  are  more 
than  twenty  rivers. 

The   Plan  of  Vertiz,  ai:)proved  by  the 

T7"  i«  CI       •      •         >,w        1    o        T    1  •   .  Quotations 

King  ot  fepain  in  1779,  defined  the  position  from  the  Span- 
of  the  mouth  of  the  8.  Antonio  and  also  inst^ructi*on'of 
that  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú.  '779- 

This  document  said,  referring  to  the  terminal  point 
of  the  labors  of  the  First  Party  : 

"  In  order  that  the  Delimitation  Commissioners  of 
this  Party  may  attain  the  end  indicated  to  it  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Pepirí-Guazú,  they  must  Location  of  the 
guide  themselves  by  the  course  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú. 
River  Uruguay-Puitá,  as  far  as  its  confluence  in  the 
River  Uruguay,  hecanse  at  tJit  distance  of  two  leagues 
and  one  third,  following  the  hanh  of  the  River 
Uruguay  in  a  Westerly  direction^  the  mouth  of  the 
River  Pepiri  will  he  found  on  the  side  opposite.  The 
River  Uruguay-Puitá  is  well  known  to  the  Indians  of 
Misiones,  principally  to  those  of  the  village  of  S" 
Angel,  who  are  nearest  to  it,  and  its  sources  are  crossed 
at  the  way  leading  to  the  Baqueria/ 

"  The  mouth  of  the  River  Pepiri-  Guazú  is  i?i  Latitude 
2f  Ç  2j".       When  the  Uruguay  is  loiv,  a  sinall  island 
is  visible  at  its  mouth,  and  at  the  point  of 
the  same  mouth,  on  the  Easter7t  side,  there      '^  thl  form'^er 
will  be  found  a  place  fro7n  which  the  trees    commissioners. 

'  Plains  of  Vaccaria  in  the  N.  E.  part  of  Rio  Grande  do  Sul. 


196  BRAZILIAN-AKGENTINE 

have  heen  cut  down,  and  in  the  middle  of  this  clearing, 
one  standing-tree,  thirteen  feet  in  height,  upon  which  a 
Cross  has  been  carved^  with  the  characters — li.  F.  AKo 
DE  1759."^ 

The  Pej)ii'y-Guii(,ni  was,  tlierefore,  the  river  demar- 
cated ill  1759,  the  same  that  Brazil  now  defends. 

The   location   of    the  mouth  of    the  S. 
Location  of       Aiitoiiio  was  not  less  clearly  defined  in  the 

the  S.  Antonio.  mi  •        i  n       •  1 

1  Ian.      Ihis    document,    reierriug    to  the 
Second  Subdivision  or  Party,  sa3's : 

"  His  Majesty  commands  that  this  Second  Subdivision 
shall  separate  from  the  First  from  the  Kiver  Ybicuy, 
\vhicli  has  its  source  in  and  passes  by  the  Montegrande, 
and  that  proceeding  through  the  Villages  (Pueblos) 
of  Misiones  as  far  as  that  of  Candelária,  or  that  of 
Corpus,  the  last  village  on  the  Eastern  bank  of  the 
Paraná,  it  shall  ascend  it  in  boats  as  far  as  the  foot  of 
the  Falls  (Salto)  of  the  River  Ygiiazú  or  Curituha, 
which  is  distant  three  leasiues  from  its  mouth  in  the 
Paraná ;  and  that,  hauling  along  its  Northern  bank  the 
medium-sized  canoes  it  may  carry,  or  building  new  ones 
ahove  the  Salto,  it  shall  navigate  in  thetn  as  far  as  the 
River  San  Antonio,  lohich  is  the  second  that  enters  it  on 
the  Southern  side,  and  going  up  this  river  as  far  as 
its  waters  will  allow,  shall  endeavor  to  survey  its 
source,  and  to  connect  it  with  the  Pepirí-Guazú,  whose 
mouth  the  First  Division  will  already  have  surveyed ; 
and  on  its  return,  it  shall  lay  down  the  demarcation 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Yguazil  to  the  foot  of  the  Great 
Falls  (Salto  Grande)  of  the  River  Paraná,  in  con- 
formity w^ith  Article  8  of  the  Treaty,  if  it  shall  not 

'  The  Spanish  Viceroy  translated  the  Portuguese  inscription.  It  said  : — 
R.  F.  Anno  de  1759.  The  two  initials  R.  F.  mean  :  Most  Faithful  King^ 
i.  e..  King  of  Portugal. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  1 97 

find  it  more  opportune  to  do  this  befoi-e  entering  the 
Yguazú. 

"  This  Party,  taking  to  their  boats  at  the  port  of  the 
said  Village  of  Corpus,  will  navigate  as  far  as  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Yguazú  (in  doing  which  it  will 
spend  more  than  twenty  days),  and,  entering  the 
same,  will  continue  up  four  leagues  as  far  as  its  Great 
Falls,  and  at  three  leasjues  and  one  fifth  from  its 
mouth  a  small  sandy  creek  will  be  found,  near  a  sti'eam 
with  a  high  Fall,  which  empties  itself  on  the  Southern 
side,  where  the  boats  can  stop,  and  a  camp  can  be 
pitched,  until  they  go  up  and  establish  another,  which 
will  be  necessary  also  above  the  Falls. 

''From  these  Falls  (Salto)  of  the  Yguazú  the  river 
will  be  navigated  for  a  distance  of  tiucnty  leagues  as 
far  as  the  month  of  the  River  San  Afitonio,  zuhich 
will  be  reached  after  an  eight  days  journey,  and 
which  lies  in  latitude  2f  j§'  4".  Filtering  this  river, 
it  will  be  found  that  at  a  distance  of  little  more  than  a 
league  and  three  quarters  it  divides  into  two  branches, 
the  smaller  bearing  the  name  of  San  Antonio-Mini, 
and  the  Fastern  branch,  zuhich  is  the  larger,  vnist  be 
followed. 

"  This  River  San  Antonio  is  not  navigable,  and  can 
only  be  explored  by  following  on  foot  the  banks  to  its 
source,  which,  nevertheless,  presents  a  number  of 
dilficulties  to  overcome,  and  those  who  go  on  this  ex- 
ploration ought  to  be  on  their  guard  against  the  wild 
Indians,  who  dwell  in  this  district,  and  they  must  carry 
their  arms  ready,  inasmuch  as  many  persons  cannot 
enter  it  because  of  the  difficulty  of  carr}'ing  supplies. 


1 98  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

"  From  the  iiioutli  of  tlie  River  Sau  Antonio  the 
Party  shall  return  surveying  the  River  Yguazii  as  far 
as  its  mouth,  which  is  in  Latitude  25°  35'  51",  which 
emi)ties  itself  into  the  Rio  Paraná,  and  shall  continue 
the  demarcation  uj)  this  river  as  far  as  its  great  Salto 
(Falls)  which  is  in  Latitude  24°  4'  27"." 

These  Spanish  Listructions  were  di-aw  n  up  in  view 

of  Ol^eedilla's  Map  of   South   America  and  of   the 

Comparison  of  í^íí^O'  of  the    delimitation    Commissioners 

the  Spanish      of   1759,   which  is  a  Hcw  and   undenial)le 

"!/íí  'í?^     proof    that   in  the    mind  of  the    Spanish 

with  the  Diary  i  .  ^ 

of  the  Demar-  (xovemment  the  Pepiry-Guaçíi  and  the  S. 
cation  of  1759.  Antonio  of  the  Treaty  of  1777,  were  the 
very  rivers  that  were  demarcated  in  1759 — the  same 
that  form  the  present  boundar}'  of  Brazil. 

The  comparison  of  the  two  texts  will  make  this 
evident : 

I)  Direct  ions  as  to  the  Pepiry-G-xacà  : 

1)  ,    . 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  1779  (Plan  of  Vice  JRoy 
Vertiz,  approved  by  King  Carlos  III.,  January  12, 
1779)  : 

"  In  order  that  the  Delimitation  Commissioners  of 
this  Party  may  attain  the  end  indicated  to  it  at  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Pepirí-guazú,  they  must  guide 
themselves  by  the  course  of  the  River  Uruguay -Pui  tá, 
as  far  as  its  confluence  in  the  River  Uruguay,  because 
at  the  distance  of  tiro  lear/ues  and  one  third,  following 
the  bank  of  the  River  Uruguay  in  a  Westerly  direction 
the  mouth  of  the  River  Pepiri  will  be  found  on  the 
opposite  side."     (In  the  original,  fol.  29  v.) 

b)  Diary  of  the  Spanish  Conunissioners,  1750  ; 
Going  up  the  Uruguay,  March  6: 


BOUNDARY  QUE  ST  I  ON.  1 99 

"The  river  continues  its  bend  to  the  X.E.  and 
N.E.  1  N.,  and  at  the  beginning  of  this  direction,  at  a 
distance  of  about  2^  leagues  of  the  Pepiri^  it  receives 
by  the  Eastern  bank  a  large  river  which  the  guide  said 
was  the  Uruguay-pita^  the  farthest  point  to  which  his 
knowledge  extended/'  (In  the  authenticated  copy, 
foL  30  V.) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  lyyç: 

"  The  mouth  of  the  River  Pepirí-Guazú  is  in  Lati- 
tude 27°  09'  23".     .     ."     (Eol.  30.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  IJ5Ç  : 

April  6,  1759:  "Mean  between  seventeen  observa- 
tions: 27°  09'  23"."     (Eol.  41.) 

3) 

a)  SpanisJi  Instruction,  ijjç  : 

"  When  the  Uruguay  is  low,  a  small  island  is  visible 
at  its  mouth.    .     .     ."     (Eol.  30.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  lyjç  : 

March  õ  :  "  .  .  .  in  this  direction  thei'e  is  a  reef 
which  terminates  in  a  small  island  of  rock,  wJiicJi  is 
covered  of  Sarandi-trees,  lying  close  to  the  Northern 
bank,  zuhicJi  is  covered  over  at  flood  time,  and  behind 
it,  at  a  distance  of  |-  of  a  league  of  the  Itayod,  is  the 
mouth  of  a  river,  which  can  only  be  seen  after  having 
doubled  the  point  of  the  island,  which  river,  the  guide 
said,  was  the  Pepiri  of  which  we  \vere  in  search." 
(Eol.  29.) 

^) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  ijjç  : 

" .  .  .  and  at  a  point  of  the  same  mouth,  on  the 
Eastei'n  side,  there  will  be  found  a  i^lace  from  which 
the  trees  have  been  cut  down,  and  in  the  middle  of 
this  clearing,  one  standing-tree,  thirteen  feet  in  height, 


200  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

upon  wliicli  ii  Cross  lins  beeu  cMi'ved,  witli  the  charac- 
ters—R.  F.  Ano  de  1759."     (Foi.  30.) 

b)  SpanisJi  Diary,  i/^ç  : 

March  8  :  ".  .  .  and  although  the  latter  (the  Falls  of 
the  Uruguay),  from  which  the  Pepiri  is  only  little  more 
than  a  league  distant,  are  a  natural  landmark  of  the 
most  visible  and  durable  sort  for  the  recoojnition  of  this 
river  at  all  times,  as  is  also  the  island  lying  immedi- 
ately at  its  mouth,  when  the  Uruguay  is  low,  neverthe- 
less, as  being  one  of  the  most  important  points  of  our 
Division,  we  stopped  there  to  take  some  observations 
of  longitude  and  latitude,  in  order  to  be  able  to  fix  its 
position  with  more  precision  and  security  ;  and,  on  a 
point,  formed  by  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Pepiri  and  by 
the  Northern  bank  of  the  Uruguay,  a  clearing  was 
made,  leaving  in  the  middle  only  a  single  tree  of  thirteen 
feet  in  height  on  which  a  Cross  was  placed,  and  on  the 
arms  of  the  Cross  these  letters  were  carved — R.  F.  Axo 
1759."     (Fol.  33.) 

II)  Directions  as  to  the  River  S.  António. 

1) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  i/jç  : 

".  .  .  it  shall  ascend  it  in  boats  as  far  as  the  foot  of 
the  Salto  (Falls)  of  the  River  Yguazú  orCurituba,  which 
is  distant  three  leagues  from  its  inouth  in  the  Paraná  ; 
and  that,  hauling  along  its  Northern  bank  the  medium- 
sized  canoes  it  may  carry,  or  building  new  ones  above 
the  Salto,  it  shall  navigate  in  them  as  far  as  the  River 
San  Antonio,  zohich  is  the  second  that  enters  it  on  the 
Southern  sideP     (Fol.  31.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  iJjÇ  : 

".  .  .  as  far  as  the  Salto  Grande  .  .  .  and  the 
canoes  being  carried  here  overland   over  a  space  of 


BO  UN  DA  R  V  Q  UES  TION. 


201 


one  league,  the  passage  is  free  even  for  large  boats,  then 
following  the  Iguaçu  which  at  three  leagues  from  the 
Salto  enters  the  Pararia  in  Latitude  25°  31'  51"  .  .  ." 
("  General  description  of  the  rivers,"  at  the  end  of  the 
Diary,  Fol.  105  v.) 

Jan.  (3,  1760:  "...  although,  besides  the  longi- 
tude and  latitude  which  are  known  to  few,  the  more 
visible  and  durable  siççu  is  found  in  the  fact  that  this 
river  Saji  Antonio  is  the  second  important  river  that 
empties  itself  on  the  South  bank  of  the  Iguaçu  above 
its  Salto  Grande,  while  the  San  Francisco,  which  is  at 
a  distance  of  one  league  and  three  quarters,  is  the  first, 
though  it  is  much  smaller,  as  are  also  the  rivulets  that 
enter  it  lower  down.     .     .     ."  (Fol.  95  v.) 

-) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  ijyg  •' 

"  This  Party,  taking  to  their  boats  at  the  port  of  the 
said  Village  of  Corpus,  will  navigate  as  far  as  the 
mouth  of  the  River  Yguazú  (in  doing  which  it  zci/i 
spend  little  more  than  twenty  days),  and,  entering  the 
same,  will  continue  iip  four  leagues  as  Jar  as  its  Salto 
Grande  {Great  Falls):'  (Fol.  32  v.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  lysç  : 

The  Commissioners  started,  on  June  20,  173c,  from 
Corpus  and  reached  the  vtoutJi  of  the  Iguaçu  on  the 
loth  July. 

July  10,  1759:  "...  But  its  course  being  im- 
mediately interrupted  by  the  interposition  of  its  Great 
Falls,  four  leagues  from  its  77ioutJi    .    .    ."  (Fol.  55.) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  lyyç  •' 

"...  and  at  j^  leagues  from  its  ??iouth  a  small 
sandy  creek  will  be  found,  near  a  stream  with  a  high 


202  BKAZILIAX-ARGENTINE 

FaU,  irlilch  eiiq>fi<s  itself  ou  llie  Soufheni  side^  where 
the  boats  eau  stop,  and  a  camp  can  be  pitched,  until 
they  ÇÇO  \\\>  and  establish  another,  w  hicli  w  ill  be  neces- 
saiy  also  above  the  Falls.    ..."  (Fol.  33.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,   1759: 

"  Oil  the  12tli  at  a  distcuice  of  3^  leagues  from  tlie 
mouth  of  the  Iguazú,  and  a  little  more  than  one  from  its 
Falls  (Salto),  ice  found  a  little  sandy  creel'  near  a 
stream  presenting  a  very  high  fall,  which  streani  empties 
itself  on  the  Southern  side,  and  this  place  being 
less  inconvenient  for  mooring  the  boats  ..."  (Fob 
Õ5  V.) 

4) 

a)  Spanish  Instruction,  1779: 

"  Before  this  ci-eek,  at  a  short  distance,  a  [)lace  will 
be  found  iu  which  to  take  above  or  ovei*  the  Salto 
(Falls)  all  the  canoes  that  ai-e  not  veiy  large,  and  in 
spite  of  the  great  labor,  it  can  be  accomplished  by  haul- 
ing the  canoes  through  these  difficult  places  a  distance 
of  3400  Toises  ujitil  the  upper  waters  of  the  same 
Salto  are  reached.  There  trees  will  be  found,  which 
can  be  used  for  making  canoes  should  they  be 
necessary.     ..."  {Y()\.  33.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  1759 : 

"  Besides  this  it  was  necessary,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  hauled,  to  oj)en  in  the  wood  a  sufficiently 
wide  track,  cutting  down  trees,  and  iu  place  levelling 
the  ground,  particularly  in  five  rivulets  they  had  to 
cross;  all  this  was  done  successfully,  and  having  been 
carried  a  distance  of  34""  daises,  they  were  all 
placed  on  the  waters  above  the  Falls  (Salto)  on 
the  29th.  Tliis  work  having  been  completed,  the 
building  of  the  new  canoes  was  commenced.  ..." 
(Fol.   57.) 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  203 

5) 

a)  Spanish  IiistriLction,  1779  : 

"  In  the  same  place,  on  high  gronnd,  above  the  fiood 
level,  huts  nuist  be  made  in  zuhich  to  store  a  part  of 
the  provisions,  so  that  they  may  be  preserved  in  good 
condition.     .     .     ."  (Fol.  33.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  1759  : 

"  While  those  were  returning  who  had  gone  to  sur- 
vey the  Northern  bank,  storing  hnts  were  built  upon 
high  gro7ind  not  exposed  to  inundations  in  zvhich  to  de- 
posit provisions  the  better  to  keep,  preserve,  and  distri- 
bute  thcni  as  might  be  necessary.     .     .     ."  (Fol.  57.) 

a)  Spanish  histructio7i,  1779  : 

"  From  this  Salto  (Falls)  of  the  Yguazii  the  river 
will  be  navigated  for  a  distance  of  tiventij  leagues  as  far 
as  the  mouth  of  the  River  San  Antonio,  loliich  ivill  he 
reciclied  after  an  eight  days'  journey,  and  which  lies  in 
latitude  25°  35'  04":'  (Fol.  33  v.) 

b)  Sjxmish  Diary,  1759  : 

The  Commissioners  spent  in  the  navigation  from 
the  Falls  (Salto)  to  the  mouth  of  the  San  Antonio 
eight  days  (16th  to  24th  November,  1759),  and 
reckoned  ahout  19  leagues. 

From  the  13th  December,  1759  : 

"Mean  between  all  the  observations:  25°  35'  04"." 
(Fol.  90.) 

a)  Spanish  Indriict ion,  1779  : 

"  Entering  this  river,  it  will  be  found  that  at  a  dis- 
tance of  a  little  more  than  a  league  and  three  quarters 
it  divides  into  two  branches,  the  smaller  hearing  the 
name  of  San  Aritonio-Jfini,  find  the  Eastern  branch, 
which  is  larger,  must  be  followed."  (Fol.  33.) 


204  BRA  ZILIA  N-ARGEN  TINE 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  17Õ9  : 

Noveiiil)er  24,  1759  : 

".  .  .  aud  lastly  taking  another  tui'n  to  the  East, 
another  reef  is  seen,  and  at  a  distance  of  a  little  iiwre 
than  1^  league  of  its  mouth  a  stream  to  which  the  name 
of  San  Antoiiio-Mini  tvas  given,  enters  it  by  its 
Southern  hanh,  forming  with  it  a  fork,  where  there  were 
two  huts  made  by  our  people  before  they  removed  to 
the  encampment  they  occupy  higher  u[).  .  .  ."  (Fol.  8Õ.) 

November  25,  1759: 

"  The  Spanish  Party  led  the  advance,  and  taking  the 
Eastern  branch,  wliich  is  the  larger,  and  by  which  the 
other  had  gone,  we  continued  the  navigation.  ..." 
(Fol.  85  V.) 

8) 

a)  Spanish  I nMruction,  1779: 

"  lhe  Miver  San  Antonio  is  not  navigahle^  and  can 
only  be  explored  by  folloiving  on  foot  the  banks  to  its 
source,  which,  nevei'theless,  presents  a  number  of  dif- 
ficulties to  overcome,  and  those  who  go  on  this  exj^lora- 
tion  ought  to  be  on  their  guard  against  the  wild 
Indians,  who  dwell  in  this  district.  ..."  (Fol.  33  v.) 

b)  Spanish  Diary,  1759: 
November  26,  1759: 

"...  wdth  repeated  reefs  between  ^vhich  there  are 
two  rather  extensive  pools,  especially  the  second,  wliich 
is  about  f  of  a  league  in  length,  and  ends  in  a  lofty  fall, 
which  had  prevented  the  Spanish  Geograplter  from  navi- 
gating farther.  ..."  (Fol.  86.) 

December  9,  1759  : 

"...  and  in  the  night  of  the  9th,  being  at  a  dis- 
tance of  Õ  leagues  from  the  encampment,  in  one  of  the 
numerous  huts  that  were  made  all  alonor  that  track  to 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  20$ 

protect  the  provisions  from  tbe  rain,  tlie  wild  Indians 
taking  advantage  of  the  deep  sleep  into^vhich  they  had 
incautiously  fallen,  attacked  them.  .  .  ."  (Two  Para- 
guayans were  wounded,  of  whom  one  died.)  (Fol.  87.) 

December  13,  1759: 

"On  the  13th  the  Commissioners  received  a  letter 
from  the  Spanish  Geographer  dated  the  10'^,  in  which 
he  said  that,  going  doivn  the  river  in  the  canoe,  he 
found  it  so  shalloxo  on  account  of  the  very  dry  toeather, 
that  he  had  experienced  great  difficulty  in  travelling 
a  little  more  than  three  quarters  of  a  league  in  one  day 
and  a  half ;  and  seeing  that  farther  on  ^vere  other  reefs 
in  the  way,  lie  had  determined  to  give  up  the  navigation 
and  to  continue  his  tracJi  overland.     .     .    .   "  (Fol.  88). 

"...  On  the  16th  (December),  the  men  who  had 
gone  to  build  the  canoes  returned  with  the  intelligence 
that  the  river  which  had  been  mentioned  by  the 
Spanish  Geographer  was  very  low,  full  of  reefs,  and 
absolutely  innavio-aVjle.     .     .     . 

"...  and  on  its  banks  they  had  found  very  recent 
footprints  of  women  and  children,  which  proved  that 
tlie  xoild  Indians  had  a  camp  near  at  hand ;  and  that 
they  disturVjed  them  on  their  march,  following  them 
with  shouts  and  clamor.     .     .     .  ''  (Fol.  91.) 

"And  from  here  they  began  to  see  over  a  dis- 
tance of  half  a  league  recent  traces  of  savages,  wide 
trodden  tracks,  and  footprints  of  women  and  children 
which  crossed  the  river  :  there  were  also  to  be  seen  the 
beds  they  had  used,  made  of  a  large  quantity  of  the 
broad  leaves  of  the  plant  Achirá.     ..."  (Fol.  93.) 


It  should  be  stated  now  that  the  Portuguese  Gov- 
ernment, in  entire  agreement  with  that  of  Spain 
reijardino;  the  number  of  the  demarcatins:  Parties  and 


206  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  KG  EN  TINE 

the  task  committed  to  ejich  one  of  tliem,  never  ap- 
proved as  a  whole  the  Spanisli  Instructions  of  1778 
and  1779.  The  Spanish  Commissioners  were  governed 
by  them,  but  not  so  the  Portuijuese. 

The  demarcation  of  the  frontier  compi'ised  between 
the  sea-coast  and  the  Igurey,  on  tlie  Paraná,  concerned 
the  First  Portuguese-Spanish  Division. 

Tliis  Division,  as  has  been  said,  was  separated  into 
two  Subdivisions  or  Parties.  The  work  of  the  First, 
beginning  at  the  littoral,  was  to  end  in  tlie  North  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçíi ;  that  of  the  Second,  com- 
mencing on  the  Paraná,  was  to  com[)rise  the  demai'cation 
of  the  boundary  lines  of  the  Iguaçu  and  the  S.  Antonio. 

General  Veiga  Cabkal  was  the  first  Portutcuese 
Commissioner,  and  Captain  Varela  y  Ulloa,  Royal 
Navy,  the  Spanish  Commissioner. 

The  Spanish  Instructions  of  1779  dii'ected  that  the 
Fii'st  Party  should  follow  the  course  of  the  Uruguay- 
Pita  in  order  to  reach  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçú. 

They  said : 

''  In  order  that  the  Delimitation  Commissioners  of 
this  Party  may  attain  the  end  indicated  to  it  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Rivei'  Pepiri-Guazii,  they 
Pepiry-Guaçú.  ^^^'^^'^'^  (juide  tkemselves  by  the  course  of  the 
River  Urv(/iiay-Puitá,  as  far  as  its  con- 
fuence  in  the  River  Uruguay^  heeause  at  the  distance 
of  two  leagues  and  one  thirds  following  the  haiik  of 
the  River  Uruguay  in  a  Westerly  dir^ection,  the  month 
of  the  River  Pepiri  will  he  found  on  the  side  opposite. 
The  River  Uruguay-Puitá  is  well  known  to  the 
Indians  of  Misiones,  principally  to  those  of  the  village 
of  S"-  Angel,  who  are  nearest  to  it,  and  its  sources 
are  crossed  at  the  way  leading  to  the  Baqueria." 


B O UNDA RY  QUES TION.  20/ 

The  Rivei-  Urugnay-Pita  or  Urugnay-Puitá,  is  not 
mentioned  in  any  of  the  Articles  of  the  Treaty  of  1777. 
The  Spanish  Instructions  advised  the  De- The2duruguay- 
mal•cators  to  follow  its  course  solely  hecamt  ^•*^'  '^^a- 
in  vieic  of  the  Map  of  Olmedilla,  and  of  aUj^receding 
maps,  it  seemed  that  this  would  facilitate  their  arrival 
at  the  neighhorhood  of  the  month  of  the  Peinrij-Guaqú. 
The  distance  indicated  of  tiro  hagnes  and  one  third 
between  the  mouth  of  the  Uruguay-Pita  and  that  of 
the  Pepiry-Guaçíi,  clearly  shows  that  the  Instructions 
referred  to  the  Uruguay-Pita,  whose  mouth  was  sur- 
veyed in  1759  by  the  first  demarcators,  that  is  to  say, 
the  second  river  to  whose  mouth  the  name  of  Uruguay- 
Pita  was  given.^ 

The  description  of  the  Uruguay  by  Lozaxo  has 
already  shown  that  along  the  left  bank  of  that  river 
large  forests  extended  (page  141  in  this  Vol.).  The 
Guaranys  of  the  Missions  were  quite  unacquainted  with 
the  courses  of  the  affluents  of  the  South  bank  of  the 
Uruguay,  because  those  forests  were  then  inhabited, 
as  they  still  were  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  by 
wild  and  fierce  Indians. 

Miguel  Lastarria,  who  was  the  Secretary  of  Viceroy 
Vertiz,  wrote  in  1804: 

"The  Wild  Tupis  wander  through  the  large  and 
dense  forests  of  the  Uruguay  and  other  rivers  which 
enter  it  by  the  East  bank,  spreading  some  80  leagues 
forward  towards  the  North  and  far  into  the  interior  of 
the  Portuguese  Dominions,  fi'om  the  headwatei'S  of  the 
Piratini  towards  the  river  Curitiva  or  Yguazu  and  the 
first  headwaters  of  the  Yacuy  or  Yguay.  .  .  ""^ 

Not  having  the  slightest  knowledge  regarding  the 

>  In  Vol.  v.,  Plans  No.  29. 

5  Lastarria's  Letter,  dated  from  Madrid,  December  i.  1804,  in  Vol.  I.  of 
the  Memoria  sobre  la  linea  divisaria.  Manuscript  in  the  National  Library  of  Paris. 


208  BRAZILIAN-AKGENTJA'E 

coui'se  of  tli(»se  livers,  the  Jesuits  iu  tlieir  maps  arbi- 
TheTrigoty.3d    tíínil.v  coiuiected   tlic  headwaters  of  some 

Uruguay-Pita  of  ^,£  f|,^,u  ^^.j|.],  ^J,^  lUOUtllS  of  Othei'S  IvlloWll 
the  Spaniards, 

«788.  on   the  Uruguay.     Olmedilla,  guided   by 

these  maps,  ti'aeed  in  the  same  manner  the  unknown 
course  of  the  Uruguav-Pitâ,  connectinof  the  headwaters 
of  the  ohl  Trigoty,  wliieli  the  Guaranys  of  the  Missions 
supposed  to  be  those  of  the  Uruguay-Pita,  witli  tlie 
mouth  of  the  river,  whicli  on  reaching  tlie  Ui'uguay 
was  thus  named.' 

In  this  mannei-,  sup})Osiug  they  had  reached  the 
ist  journey  to  ii^^'^^t^  '^^  the  Urugmiy-Pitã  surveyed  in 
the  Uruguay,  1759,  the  Portuguese  astronomer  José  de 
May,  1788.  Saldanha  and  the  Spanish  geographer 
GuxDix,  commissioned  by  Veiga  Cabral  and  Vaeela, 
reached,  in  1788,  the  mouth  of  the  Ti-igoty,  now  Kio 
da  Várzea. 

Thence  they  went  down  the  Uruguay  to  seek  the 
mouth  of  the  Pepiíy-Guaçú  which,  according  to  the 
Instructions,  shoukl  be  two  leagues  and  one  third  down 
stream ;  but,  as  was  natural,  the  starting-point  being 
different,  they  were  unable  to  reach  the  true  Pepiry- 
Guaçii.  They  went  down  as  far  as  the  Apitereby,  and, 
returning  up  stream,  tliey  believed  that  the  river  now 
called  das  Antas  was  the  Pepiry-Guaçú.  They  left 
upon  a  tree  the  following  inscription : 

Post  facta  resurgens,  Pepiry-Guasú,  Maio  9,  1788^ 

'  The  Spaniard  Oyárvide  in  his  Memoria  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that 
many  rivers  which  he  surveyed  have  one  name  at  their  sources,  and  another  at 
their  mouths.     He  says  : 

"  As  among  the  Indians  we  have  with  us  there  is  no  special  guide,  it  happens 
that  they  give  the  same  name  which  they  bear  in  the  lower  part  of  their  course, 
and  at  their  sources,  to  very  few  of  the  streams  which  we  met  on  the  march ; 
but  in  spite  of  this  want  of  accuracy  in  the  information  we  have,  these  streams 
have  been  laid  down  on  our  plan  with  those  surveyed  along  the  way,  as,  from 
the  nature  of  the  ground  and  the  density  of  the  forests,  which  extend  from  both 
banks  of  the  Uruguay,  it  seemed  probable  their  course  would  run." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  2O9 

and  the  letters  R.  F.  (Rei  Fidelissiino, — Most  Faithful 
King),  on  tbe  Eastern  side,  and  R.  C.  (Rei  Catliolico, 
— Catholic  King)  on  the  Western  side. 

Returning  to  the  encampment  of  the  First  Commis- 
sioners, they  found  a  Diary  of  the  demai-cation  of  1759, 
and  then  they  ascertained  that  íK-itler  teas  the  Urvguay- 
Pita  the  river  upon  which  they  were,  nor  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçii  the  river  at  which  they  had  left  the  inscription. 

The  Diary  of  Saldanha  says : 

"Thursday,  July  10  (1788).  The  whole  month  of 
June  having  been  spent  in  accurate  and  careful  inves- 
tigations by  the  Principal  Commissioners,  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  river  we  had  now  found  was  the  Pepiri- 
Guassii  of  the  previous  demarcators,  a  detailed  and  v:ell- 
'kept  Diary  of  the  demarcation  of  1759,  and  iqjoii  the 
same  sulject  of  the  Fepiry-Giiaçú,  at  last  came  into 
the  p)ossession  of  the  Spanish  Commissioner,  by  the 
reading  of  tuhich  we  tvere  all  undeceived.  Neither 
tvas  the  Urvcniay-Fita  the  Rio  da  Picada,  _,  ,. 

d       tJ  '    The  error  dis- 

although  the  old  Plans  thus  named  its  covered  as  to 
headwaters,    nor    was    the    Pepiri-Guassk   the  Uruguay- 

.  Pita 

the  one  tee  had  recently  marked,  although  it 
had  some  appearances  of  it. 

"  Such  an  error  in  so  important  a  matter  rendered  a 
prompt  remedy  necessary;  there  was  no  other  than  to 
retui'n  a  second  time  to  the  Uruguay,  utilizing  the 
good  weather  that  still  remained,  and  to  hasten  to  the 
canoes  which  had  been  left  in  the  Rio  da  Picada.  ..." 

Veiga  Cabeal  and  Vakela  again  sent  the  same  Sal- 
danha  and  GuNDix  in   search  of  the  tnie      ,  , 

2d  Journey  to 

Pepiry-Guaçii,  giving  them  for  this  purpose,    the  Uruguay, 

to  fu ide  them,  an  extract  from  the  Diarv    July,  August, 
^         .  '  ■  1788. 

of  the  First  Demarcators. 

Saldanha  went  down  by  the  Rio  da  Picada  (the  old 


2  IO  BA\4  ZILIA  X-A  RGEN  TINE 

TrinH^y  íuid  false  Uniniiav-Pitá),  entered 

Discovery  of  '         *  inn       ^    ^'•       i 

the  River  of     t'i«^  Ui'Uguay  and  lollowed  It  down-stream, 
the  Argentine  GuNDiN,  before  going  down   the  Urugnay, 

pretension,  ,  i         j.-       "^  4.  1    r 

J  gg  made  an  exploitation  ii[)-stream,  and  discov- 

eretl  the  mouth  of  a  river  at  which  he  left 
the  following  inscription : 

"  Te  Deum  laiidarmis.     Avgiist  4,  1788^ 

Saldanha  had  discovered  on  July  26th,  the  mouth 

of  the  true  Uruguay-Pita  and,  on  the  28th,  that  of  the 

Pepiry-Guaçú.     Some    days    afterwards    (August   13, 

1788),  the  Spanish  geographer  Gundin  ar- 

The  Pepiry-     j.^yg^^   there  and  also  recoo-nized   the  river 

Guaçu  found,  .  ^^ 

as  the  true  Pepiry-Guaçú  of  the  Treaty, 
nailing  to  a  tree  a  plate  of  copper  which  Vaeela  had 
given  him  for  this  purpose  and  upon  which  were  en- 
graved the  following  words  : 

"  Hucusque  ciuxiUatus  est  nobis  Deus.  Pepin- 
Gnazil     1788:' 

The  inscription  put  up  by  Saldanha  on  July  28th 
was  this : 

"Sine  auxilio  tuo,  Domine,  niliil  sumus.  Pepiri- 
O  nam.     1788:' 

Thus,  by  common  accord,  was  the  mouth  of  the 
Pepiry-Guaçú  of  the  Treaty  recognized. 

But  the  following  year,  the  first  Spanish  Commis- 
sioner Varela  raised  the  question  which  is  now  about 
Orig-inofthe  ^^  ^^®  solved,  by  assei'tiug  that  in  the  de- 
present  con-  marcation  of  1759  there  had  been  an  error, 
troversy.  .^,^j    ^j,.^^    ^}^^    Pepiiy  01'  Pequiiy  of    the 

Treaty  of  1750  was  the  river  discovered  by  Gundin  on 
August  4,  1788,  because  that  river  was  up-stream  of  the 
Uruguay-Pita. 

In  this  manner  there  came  to   be  a  third  Uruguay- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  211 

Pita  more  to  the  East  thau  the  second  (of  1759)  and 
it  was  claimed  that  the  Pepiíy-Guaçii  should  be  dis- 
placed toward  the  East  while  the  name  Uruguay-Pita 
should  thus  be  transfei'red  from  one  river  to  the  other. 

This  pretension  gave  rise  to  a  discussion,  sometimes 
very  heated,  between  the  Second  Commissioners 
Roscio  (Portuguese)  and  Diego  de  Alvear  (Spanish). 

The  latter,  according  to  the  Instructions  of  his  chief 
Vaeela,  insisted  upon  a  joint  survey  of  the  river  dis- 
covered by  GuxDix,  a  I'iver  Avhich  the  Portuguese 
called  Caudaloso,  and  to  which  the  Spaniards  wanted 
to  give  the  name  of  Pepiry-Guaçú. 

The  Principal  Portuguese  Commissioner  allowed 
the  exploration  of  that  river,  with  the  Exploration 
sole  object  of  ol)taining  from  the  Span-  oftheR.  Cau- 
iards    their    consent     to    survey    as    far   daioso,  Piquin- 

^  _  Guazu  of  the 

as  its  principal  source    the   true   Pepiry-     Spanish  Com- 

Guacu.  raissioners. 

The  exploration  of  the  river  of  Guxdix  was  carried 
out  by  Chagas  Santos  (Portuguese)  and  Oyáevide 
(Spanish).  The  latter  gave  the  river  the  name  of 
Pequirí-Guazíi,  which  was  never  recognized  by  the 
Portuguese. 

The  Instructions  of  Alvear  to  Oyarvide,  on  No- 
vember 17,  1789,  contained  these  passages  which  are 
worthy  of  notice ' : 

"  It  being  important  to  the  service  of  His  Majesty 
to  explore  and  survey  the  river  which  we  believe  to  be 
the  true  Pepiry-Guaçú,  discovered  l)y  our  geographer 
of  the  First  Division  D.  Joaquix  Gundix,  and  which 
enters  the  Uruguay  about  six  leagues  to  the  East  of 
the  Uruguay-pita  by  the  North   bank,  I  have  deter- 

'  In  Calvo,  IX.,  200. 


2  I  2  B  KA  ZI  LI  A  N-A  KGEN  TINE 

niiiit'd  ti-)  put  uiidei'  your  cliarge  the  executiou  of  tins 
work,  trustinu:  to  your  zeal  and  energy  its  most  com- 
plete fulfilment. 

''In  order  to  render  here  a  service  of  greater  im- 
portance, if  the  I'iver  running  for  many  leagues 
should  go  through  prairies,  as  can  be  expected  from 
the  great  depth  and  breadth  of  its  mouth,  you  will 
endeavor  to  ascertain  with  all  care,  now  informed  and 
assisted  by  the  inhal)itants  of  the  countiy  whom  you 
may  see,  now  guided  by  conjectui'es  to  \vhich  you  may 
naturally  be  led,  in  view  of  the  character  and  the  con- 
figuration of  the  ground,  whether  there  is  in  that  im- 
mediate neiííhborhood  another  river  whose  headwaters 
lie  opposite  and  can  be  connected  with  those  of  our 
Piquiri,  and  which,  flowing  towards  the  North,  shall 
empty  itself  into  the  Iguazú. 

''  The  existence  of  such  a  vivei\  xohich  is  very 
prohcihle,  may  induce  the  Courts  to  clwose  it  as 
a  houndary  instead  of  the  San  Antonio^  which  the 
Treaty  designates  merely  as  opposite  to  that  which  the 
fornner  d^marcators  have  erroneously  called  Pepiri, 
takiny  it  for  mch,  and.  ivhich  we  can  call  Pepiri- 
Mini,  in  order  to  av<nd  a  new  error  or  misunder- 
standinçí.     ,     .     ." 

Chagas  Santos  only  accompanied  Oyárvide  as  far 
c  A  f^  •«       Í1B  the  source  of  the  Rio  Caudaloso  or  Pe- 

o.  Antonio 

Guazú  of         quirí-Guazú.      Oyákvide   continuing,    dis- 

Oyárvide,  covered  on  June  17,  1791,  the  sources  of  a 
1791.  .  .  '  ' 

river  to  which   he  gave  tlie  name  of  San 

Antonio  Guazú. 

The  survey  of  the  S.  Antonio  of  the  Treaty  had  been 
R  s  Antonio  "i'*^*^^  '^^  1788,  from  its  mouth  to  the  prin- 
cipal headwater  by  the  same  Sub-Commis- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  213 

sioners  Chagas  Santos  and  Oyákyide,  and  that  of  the 
Pepiíy-Guaçíi  by  Joaquix  Felix  da  Foxseca  (Portu- 
sruese)  and  Cabrer  (Spanish),  in  1789  and 

°  „  1  11  j«  R-  Pepiry- 

1790,  from  the  mouth  to  the  source  ot  an  cuaçú. 

Eastern  Branch. 

In  the  Diary  of  Cabrer  it  is  seen  that,  unable  to  find 
the  mark  placed  at  the  principal  source  of  the  S.  An- 
tonio, he  and  Foxseca  concluded  that  the  Pepiry-Guaçú 
had  improperly  received  that  name,  and  they  wrote 
upon  the  plate  of  copper  which  the  Spanish  g'eogra- 
pher  GuxDix  had  set  up  there  the  following  words : 
^^  Pepiri  2?rcedato  nomine  vocor,  1790^ 

Cabrer  might  have  done  this,  but  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  Foxseca.  The  latter  had  positive  orders 
not  to  touch  the  inscriptions  placed  there  in  1788.^ 
The  letter  of  July  28,  1790,  of  Veiga  Cabral 
to  the  Viceroy  of  Brazil  gives  a  full  account  of  the 
Survey  made  by  Foxseca  and  does  not  mention  that 
"  Pepiri prcedator  nomine  voco)\^'  which  does  not  appear 
in  the  Report  of  Cabrer,  transcribed  by  Oyárvide,^ 
and  was  never  quoted  by  Alvear  in  his  discussion 
with  Roscio.  Cabrer  wrote  his  Diary  many  years 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  survey. 

All  the  arguments  of  the  Spanish  Commissioners  of 
the  second  demarcation  have  been  refuted  in  the  first 
part  of  this  Statement  because  they  were  based  on  the  er- 
rors which  they  attributed  to  their  predecessors  of  1759. 

The  Spanish  Government  did  not  commit  ^j^^  Spanish 
to  them  the  task  of  correcting  the  errors  of  instructions 
the  preceding  demarcation,  but  that  of  sur-      'sregar 

1  Order  of  February  8,  17S9,  of  the  ist  Portuguese  Commissioner,  Veiga 
Cabral. 

•^  In  Calvo,  IX.,  289. 


214  BKAZ/L/A  A'-.\  KGEN7'/XE 

veying  and  demarciitiiig  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guavu  and 
8.  Antdnio  defined  in  tlie  Treaty,  rivers  wliich  were 
indisputably  those  surveyed  in  1759,  as  was  proved  by 
the  examination  of  the  official  maps  anterior  to  the 
Spanish  Instructions  of  1778  and  1779. 

The  river  Uruguay-Pita  mentioned  in  the  Instructions 
of  1779  (Plan  of  the  Viceroy  Vektiz)  was  the  river 
known  by  that  name  at  the  time,  and  whose  mouth, 
accoi-ding  to  the  Diary  of  the  demarcators  of  1759, 
was  2-^  leagues  to  the  East  from  tlie  mouth  of  the 
Pepiry-Guaçú. 

The  Commissioners,  staHing  from  the  mouth  of  tliis 
Uruguay-Pita^  ivere  to  go  doivn  the  Uruguay^  to  find, 
at  that  distance,  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú.  They 
hegaii  by  tramferring  to  the  Trigoty,  whose  mouth  is 
much  more  to  the  East,  the  name  of  the  Uruguay -Pita 
of  1759,  the  river  to  which  the  Instructions  of  1779 
referred,  and  they  went  in  search  of  the  Pejpiry  above 
the  mouth  of  tliat  false  Uruguay -Pita  of  1788. 

The  Spanish  Government  never  took  into  considera- 
tion the  change,  proposed  by  its  Conunissioners,  of  the 
border  line  defined  by  the  Treaty  of  1777. 

In  the  Memoria  of  Oyárvide  the  following  occurs : 

"The  year  1796  having  come  without  any  solution 
of  the  contention  as  to  the  drawing  of  the  divisional 
line  from  tlie  Uruguay  to  the  Iguazú     .     .     ."^ 

And  in  the  Diary  of  Cabrer  : 

"  The  Court  of  Madrid  never  replied  ;  why,  we  do 
not  know,  but  it  is  very  easy  to  infer.  Nor  did  they 
ever  ackno\vledge  the  receipt  of  the  Plans  and  geo- 
graphical Maps  which  were  sent  there  even  in  triplicate 
for  information  regarding  the  demarcation."^ 

'  OyAkvide,  in  Calvo,  X.,  67. 

'  Cabrer,  Diário,  Manuscript,  Vol.  I.,  p.  617  ;  edited  by  MiLiTON  Gonza- 
lez, II.,  267. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  21  5 

IX. 

Id  the  Itiver  Plate  the  present  controversy  between 
Brazil    and    the    Arwntine    Ilei)ublic    is  ^^        .    .  ^ 

~     ,  \    _  The  contested 

always  called  the  question  of  Misiones, —  territory  was 
a  designation  which  some  Brazilian  writers     "^^^"^  ^  p^^^ 

,  ,  ,    .  .  of  Misiones. 

have  adopted  in  recent  times. 

From  the  Argentine  point  of  view,  it  is  well  applied, 
because  the  controversy  tiii-ns  upon  the  question  as  to 
Avhat  is  to  be  the  Eastern  boundary  of  the  Ar^-entine 
territory  called  Misiones;  but  from  the  Brazilian  point  of 
view, and  considering  the  Geogi-aphical  History  of  South 
America,  the  designation  is  improper  and  inaccurate, 
because  the  Brazilian  territorv  which  tiie  Argentine 
Republic  wishes  to  acquire  by  substituting  for  the  Pe- 
piry-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio  of  the  Treaty  of  1777  two 
rivers  more  to  the  East,  found  in  1788  and  1791,  never 
formed  part  of  the  old  Province  of  the  Missionaries  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus  in  Paraguay,  afterwards  called  by  the 
Spaniards  Province  of  Misiones. 

In  the  XVIth  century  the  Spaniards  of  Paraguay 
founded  to  the  East  of  the  Paraná  and  to 

1        -V-        1        J.       1        T  ■      •  •  Missions  of 

the  Jsortn  oi  the  Iguaçu,  in  the  region  the  Jesuits  in 
which  they  called  Province  of  Guayra,  ^^^  ^^^'^ 
two  small  cities  :  Guayra,  or  Ciudad  Real,  *^^"  ^^^' 

on  the  Pe(|uiry,  near  the  confluence  of  this  river  with 
the  Paraná,  and  Villa  Rica,  on  the  left  bank  and  near 
the  mouth  of  the  Quiribatai  or  Curumbatahy,  an 
affluent  of  the  Guibay,  now  the  Ivahy.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  XVIIth  centuiy,  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay 
began  to  convert  the  Guarauy  Indians  of  that  region 
and  to  collect  them  around  the  rude  churches  they 
were  raising.  The  first  missions  founded  by  them 
were  those  of  Loreto  and  Santo  Iguacio  Mini  (1(510) 
on  the  left  bank  of  the  Paranapané  or  Paranapauema, 


2  1 6  BRA  ZILIA  X-A  RGENTINE 

ail  affluent  of  tlie  Paraná;  afterwards  they  successively 
establislie»!  those  of  Sau  Xavier  (1623)  and  San  José 
(1024 ),  on  two  affluents  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Tibagiba. 
now  Tibagy;  Angeles  (1(324), on  the  left  bank  of  the  Cur- 
uinbataliy;  Encarnacion  (1625),  San  Miguel  (1628),  and 
Jesus  Maria  (1630),  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tibagy, 
and  San  Pedro  (1627),  a  few  leagues  to  the  East;  Sau 
Pablo  (1627)  and  San  Antonio  (1628),  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  Guil^ai  or  Ivahy  ;  Santo  Thome  (1628)  to 
the  East  of  the  Curumbatahy ;  and  Concei)cion  de  los 
Gualachos  (1628)  near  the  sources  of  this  last  river. 
On  the  I'ight  bank  of  the  Iguaçu,  near  the  Great  Falls 
of  this  river,  they  founded  the  mission  of  Santa  Maria 
Mayor  (1626)/ 

The  Map  Paraquaria  vulgo  Paraguay  cum  ad'/a- 
ceiitihus  presented  to  Father  Vincexzo  CaraffAj^sIiowíj 
the  places  then  occu[)ied  by  the  missions  of  the 
Jesuits,  and  the  seats  of  those  which  were  taken  and 
destroyed,  from  1630  to  1638,  by  the  Paulistas. 

The  missions  and  cities  of  Guayra  were  bounded 
by  the  Iguaçu  on  the  South,  the  Paranapanema  on  the 

'  In  this  Statement  the  dates  and  positions  of  the  missions  are  indicated 
according  to  the  Annua/  Report  signed  at  Cordova  de  Tucuman  on  the  12"? 
November,  1628,  and  addressed  by  the  Rev.  F*^  Nicolas  Durax,  Provincial 
of  the  Province  of  Paraguay,  to  the  Rev.  Y^.  MuTio  ViTELESCi,  Vlth  General  of 
the  Society  of  Jesus  ;  and  also  from  the  Historia  Provinti.t  Paraquaricc  Societatis 
Jesu  by  F.  NICOLÂO  DEL  Techo  (Nicolas  du  Toict),  printed  at  Lille  in  1673. 

The  .>í««?/í7/ of  Nicolas  Duran,  giving  the  first  account  of  these  founda- 
tions, was  printed  in  Latin  and  in  French.  Latin  Edition :  Littera-  annua 
provinci.e  Paraquaria:  Soc".  Jesu  ad  admoJum  R.  P.  Mutium  Vittei.esiu.U 
ejusdctn  Soc'{  Prapositum  Generakni,  viissic  a  R.  P.  Nicolas  Duran.  .  .  . 
Antuérpia:  .  .  .  lójó.  French  Edition :  Relation  des  insignes  progrez 
de  la  Religion  Chrestienne  fails  av  Par aqvai  Province  de  VAmerique  Meridi- 
onale,  &'  dans  les  vastes  regions  de  Guair  cr=  d'  Vruaig  nouvelleinent  découuertes 
par  les  Peres  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesvs,  is  annas  1626  &"  162J.  Enuoyée  ati 
R.  P.  A/rr/o  V/telbsc/,  General  de  la  mesme  Compagnie,  par  le  R.  P. 
Nicolas  Digram,  Prouincial  en  la  Pronince  dc  Paraquai.     .     .     .   Paris,  1638. 

*  Map  No.  I  A  in  Vol.  VL  of  this  Statement. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  2,1  J 

Korth,  the  Paraná  on  the  West  and  the  Seri-a  dos 
Ao;udos  on  the  East.  They  were,  therefore,  situated 
to  the  North  of  the  territory  now  contested. 

Besides  the  missions  of  Guavra,  the  Jesuits  had 
the  following  in  1630,  the  year  of  the  first  invasion  of 
the  Brazilians  of  S.  Paulo  : 

To  the  West  of  the  Paraná :  Natividad  del  Acaraig 
(1619),  Encarnacion  de  Itapiia  (1615),  and  S.  Ignacio 
GuazLi  (1610). 

Between  the  Paraná  and  the  Uruguay :  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  former  of  these  rivers,  Corpus  (1622) ,  and 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  second,  beginning  with  the 
most  Southerly,  Reyes  del  Yapejii  (1626),  Concepcion 
(1620),  S.  Xavier  (1629),  and  Assumpeion  del  Acara- 
guay  or  Acarana  (1630).  This  last  was  the  nearest 
mission  to  the  Pepiry  that  the  Jesuits  had.  It  will  be 
treated  of  later  on. 

To  the  East  of  the   Uruguay:   San   Nicolas   (1626) 
on  the  Piratiny  ;  Candelária  de  Caázapámini 
(1627),  between  the  liuhy  and  the  Piratiny ;      Conquest  of 

\  /^  0       J  ..  Guayra  and 

and  Martyres  de  Cáaro  (1628),  on  the  río  Grande 
Ijuhy-Mirim.  doSuibythe 

In  1630  and  1631  the  Paulistas,' led  by  P^"i^=^"- 
AjS^toxio  Raposo  TAyAREs  and  by  the  sub-leaders  Fre- 
derico DE  Mello,  Axtoxio  Bicudo,  Sbiào  ALyARES,  and 
Maxoel  Morato,  attacked  and  destroyed  in  the  Pro- 
vince of  Guayra  the  missions  of  S.  Miguel,  S.  Antonio, 
Jesus  Maria,  San  Pablo,  San  Xavier,  S.  Pedi'O,  and  Con- 
cepcion de  los  Gualachos.  "  We  have  come,"  said 
they,  "  to  drive  you  out  of  all  this  region,  because  these 
lands  are  ours  and  not  those  of  the  King  of  Spain."  ^ 

Collecting  then  at  Loreto  and  S.   Ignacio  Mini  the 

*  "  Venimos  a  echarlos  de  toda  esta  region  porque  ebta  tierra  es  nuestra  y  no 
del  Rey  de  Espana"  (Montoya,  CotKjuista  Espiritiutl,  Madrid,  1639.  ^  35). 


2  1 8  B!^A  ZILIA  X-A  KG  EN  TINE 

fiiuitive  Tiuliaus;  of  tlie  otlier  missions,  the  Jesuits  re- 
solved to  ahiuuloii  the  Province  of  Guayra  and  to 
settle  those  Indians  on  the  territory  lying  between  the 
Paraná  and  the  Uruguav.  The  transmigi-ation  of  the 
12,000  remaining  catechumens  was  effected  in  16.'U, 
under  the  direction  of  Ff  j\[ontoya,  and  as  the  Cain- 
gang  or  Coroados  Indians,  masters  of  the  banks  of  the 
Iguayii  and  of  the  Uruguay  al)ove  the  Great  Falls  of 
those  rivers,  made  a  journey  overland  impossible,  it 
was  undei'taken  by  water,  down  the  Pai"ana[)anema 
and  the  Paraná  on  seven  hundred  rafts.  With  these 
Indians  the  missions  of  Loreto  and  S.  Ignacio-Mini 
were  founded  near  the  left  l:)ank  of  the  Paraná  to  the 
South  of  Corpus. 

In  the  year  1632  the  Paulistas  took  Villa  Rica  and 
Ciudad  Eeal,  and  the  following  year,  when  they  were 
marching  to  the  mouth  of  the  Iguaçu,  the  missions  of 
Santa  Maria  Mayoi-,  near  the  Great  Falls  of  that 
rivei',  and  that  of  the  Natividad  of  the  Acaraig  were 
hastily  evacuated. 

From  that  time  (1633)  the  Paulistas'  remained 
masters  of  all  the  tei-ritory  to  the  East  of  the  Paraná 
and  to  the  North  of  the  Iguaçu.  In  the  preceding 
year  they  had  already  crossed  the  Upper  Paraná,  dis- 
lodged the  Jesuits  from  the  positions  they  occupied  to 
the  West  of  the  Rio  Pardo,  in  Matto  Grosso  (missions 
of  Itatines),  and  had  destroyed  the  Si)anisli  City  of 
Santiago  de  Jerez,  situated  on  a  table-land  of  the 
Serra  de  Amambahy.^ 

'  Map  No.  I  A  gives  the  ruins  of  the  first  city  of  Jerez,  founded  in  1579  on 
the  right  bank  of  the  Mbotetey  and  evacuated  shortly  afterwards.  The  second 
Jerez  was  founded  in  1593  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Mondego,  and  transferred 
in  1625  to  a  table-land  of  the  Serra  de  Amambahy,  then  called  Llanos  de 
Yaguary.     This  was  the  Jerez  attacked  by  the  Paulistas  in  1632. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  219 

111  1631,  the  Jesuits  of  Pcaraguay  began  to  extend 
their  settlements  to  the  East  of  the  Uruguay,  where 
they  had,  as  was  said  before,  three  missions.  In  163G, 
there  were  already  fifteen,  bounded  by  the  Uruguay 
on  the  West,  the  Ijuhy  (then  liuii)  and  the 
Serra  Geral  on  the  North,  the  Ibicuhy  (then  Ibi- 
cuity)  and  the  Jacuhy  (Igay)  on  the  South,  and  the 
Taquary  (at  that  time  Tebicuary)  on  the  East.  To 
the  Eastern  pai't  of  this  territory.  North  of  the 
Jacuhy,    the   Jesuits    gave   the  name  of  Province  of 

Tape. 

These  were  the  missions,  beginning  with  tliose  most 

to  the  East : 

On  the  right  bank  of  the  Rio  Pardo  (at  that   time 
Yequi  or  Rio  Verde),  San  Christoval  (163-4)  and  Jesus 
Maria  (1633)  ;  on  the  left  bank  and  near  the   head- 
waters of  the  same  river,   S.  Joaquin  (1633).     At  the 
Passo  (ford)  of  Jacuhy,  left  bank  of  the  river  of  that 
name,  Sant'  Ana  (1633).  Natividad  (1632)  to  the  right 
of  the  Araricá.  Santa  Theresa  (1633),  near  the  sources 
of  the  Jacuhy,  not  far  from  the  place  of  the  present  Bra- 
zilian town  of  Cruz  Alta.    San  Carlos  de  Caáiú  (1631), 
at  the  headwaters  of  the  Ijuhy  Guaçii.     Apostoles  de 
Caázapáguaçú  (1631),  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Ijuhy 
Mh'im.     Martyres  de  Caáro  (1628)  and  Candelária  de 
Caázapáminí  (1627)  between  the  Ijuhy  and  the  Piratiny. 
San  Nicolas    (1626)    on   the  left  bank  and   near  the 
mouth  of  the  Piratiny  on  the  Uruguay.     Santo  Thome 
(1633)  on  the  right  bank  of  trhe  Itii  (then  Til)iquaci), 
an  affluent  of  the  Ibicuhy.      And  S.  José  de  Itaquatiá 
(1633),  S.   Miguel    (1632)    and  SS.    Cosme-y-Damian 
(1634),  to  the  North  of  the  Ibicuhy. 

All  these  settlements  were  taken  by  the  Paulistas, 


2  20  BK.-l  ZIUA  A'-A  RGEN  TINE 

under  tlie  coinniaiul  of  Ratoso  Tavaiies,  or  abandoned 
by  the  Jesuits  and  tlieir  Indians,  after  stubborn  fights 
which  took  place  at  Jesus  Maria  and  S.  Chi'istoval  in 
1636,  and  at  Caáro,  Caázapáguaçíi,  Oaázapánnní  and  S. 
Nicolas,  in  1638.  The  Jesuits  led  to  the  West  of  the 
Uruguay  the  Indians  \vho  were  able  to  escape  from 
the  disaster,  incorporating  them  with  those  of  the  old 
missions  they  maintained  there,  or  forming  others 
which  received  the  names  of  those  that  had  just 
been  destroyed.  It  was  then  that,  between  the  Uru- 
guay and  the  Paraná,  the  missions  of  Santo  Thome, 
Apostoles,  San  Carlos,  S.  José,  Candelária,  Martyres,  S. 
Cosme,  Saut'  Ana,  S.  Nicolas,  and  S.  Miguel  were 
established. 

That  of  Assumpcion,  founded  in  1630  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  Ui'uguay  and  of  the  Acaraguay  or  Aca- 
rana,^  was  transferred  in  1637  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Mbororé,^  because  the  former  position  seemed  to  the 
Jesuits  much  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  the  Paulistas, 
who  freely  crossed  the  territory  now  contested,  then 
known  as  Ibituruna,  according  to  the  old  ruttiers  of 
the  same  Paulistas. 

The  Caino-ano-s  or  Coroados  Indians  who  inhal)ited 
that  terj'itory  and  the  extensive  forests  South  of  the 
Uruguay,  to  the  East  of  the  Great  Falls,  were 
irreconcilable  enemies  of  the  Guaranys,  and  did 
not  allow  them  or  the  Spanish  Jesuits  to  approach, 
while  they  allowed  the  Paulistas  a  free  passage 
and  even  aided  them  in  their  attacks  ai^ainst  the 
missions. 

The  Guaranys  of  Paraguay  and  the  Tupys  of  Brazil 

'  G  7  on  Map  No.  29  A  (Vol.  VI.). 
'  H  7  on  same  Map. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  221 

spoke,  and  all  speak,  the  AhaTieenga  language  ("  the 
language  of  men  "),  named  by  the  Portuguese — general 
language  of  the  Brazilians, — but  better  known  at  the 
present  day  by  the  name  of  guanmy  given  to  it  by  the 
Jesuits  of  Paraguay.  The  Caingangs  or  Coroados,  im- 
properly named  Tupys  by  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay 
and  by  the  Spaniards,  speak  a  very  different  language 
from  the  Abaiieenga,  and  are  included  in  the  grouj)  of 
the  Crens  or  Guerengs,  according  to  the  classification 
of  Martius,  accepted  by  all  anthropologists/  That  ac- 
counts for  the  geographical  names  of  the  region  to  the 
East  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio  from 
Campo  Eré  to  the  East  of  the  Cliopim  and  Chapecó. 

From  that  teri'itory,  now  contested,  started,  in  Mai'ch, 
1641,  going  down  the  Uruguay  in  three  hundi-ed 
canoes,  the  expedition  which,  accordina:  to 

1  1-1/.101-/.X  ^^^  Brazilians 

the  chroniclers  oi  the  Society  oi  Jesus,  was  of  s.  Paulo  in 
composed  of  400  Paulistas  and   2700  In-      the  territory 

T  IT  1  i     1     •        i  1  i..       1    now  contested. 

dian  allies,  and  was  routed  in  the  attack 
on  Mbororé,  where  the  Jesuits  awaited  it  with  an 
army  of  4000  Guaranys.^  But,  notwithstanding  their 
real  or  supposed  victory,  the  Indians  of  the  mission  of 
Assumption  of  Mboi'ore,  immediately  abandoned  that 
place,  as  they  had  already  abandoned  the  Acaraguay, 
and  went  to  incorporate  themselves  with  those  of  the 
mission  of  Yapejii,  the  most  Southern  of  the  missions 
of  the  Uruguay.  In  1657  they  left  YapeJii  to  found 
the  village  of  La  Cruz,  a  little  to  the  South  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Aguapey. 

'  Martius,  Beitrdge  zur  Ethnographie  und  Sprachenkunde  Amerika's 
zumal  Brasiliens,  Leipzig,  1867,  2  vols,  in  8°  ;  and  Rio-Branco  and  Za- 
EOROWSKI,  L Anthropologic,  in  Le  Brésil,  by  E.  Lkvasseur,  Memore  de 
r Institui.  .   .   .  Extrait  de  la  Grande  Encyclopedic,  Paris,  18S9,  I  vol.  in  fol. 

*Schirmbeck,  Messis  Paraqiiariensis,  Munich,  1649,  p.  4;  Techo,  Hist. 
Prov.  ParaqtiaricF,  Lib.   XIIL,  §  7. 


222  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

III   the  suuie  year  as  that  of  the  fight  of  Mbororé, 
tlie  Jesuits  of    the   Missions  between  the 

Intrenchment    ^^  ,  i     tt  ,  •   i        ,i      • 

of  the  Pauiis-  ^  ^^'"''^'^^^  and  Uruguav  went,  with  tlieir 
tas  on  the  Iiuliaiis,  to  attack  two  forts  occupied  by 
Apitereby.  ^j^^  PauHstas,  oue  on  tlie  Tabaty,  the  other 
on  the  Apitereby. 

The  Tabaty,  upon  whicli  tlie  mission  of  S.  Xavier 
was  formerly  situated,  is  the  affluent  of  the  left  ])aiik 
of  the  Uruouay  to  which  the  Jesuits  gave  the  name  of 
Yaguarape  in  their  maps  of  1722  and  1732,  and  which, 
in  17Õ9,  according  to  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
demarcators,  was  known  as  the  Itapuá.  It  now  bears 
the  name  of  Camandahy/ 

The  river  which  the  Jesuits  then  called  Apitereby, 
as  has  already  been  shown,  was  the  first  above  the 
Salto  Grande  (Great  Falls),  that  is  to  say,  the  one  the 
Paulistas  knew  as  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry.  The  Jesuits 
ap]>lied  this  last  name  to  tlie  Mandiy-Guaçú  of  1759, 
now  Soberbio,^  below  the  same  Salto  Grande. 

But  whether  the  entrenchment  referred  to  was  on 
the  old  and  supposed  Apitereby  of  the  Jesuits,  or  on 
the  small  river  to  the  East  which  retains  that  name  to 
the  present  day,'*  the  important  fact  is  that  in  the  terri- 
tory now  disputed  the  Brazilians  occupied  in  1641  a 
fortified  position,  according  to  F^Lozano,  the  Chronicler 
of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  the  Province  of  Paraguay. 
He  says  that  the  Guaranys  of  the  Missions,  after  tak- 
ing the  foi-t  of  the  Tabati,  went  to  attack  that  of  the 
Apitereby  :  "  They  passed  on  rapidly  to  another  fort 
called  Apiterebi,  and,  attacking  it,  obliged  the  Mame- 

'  H  7  in  Map  29  A,  Vol.  VI. 
^  F  9  in  Map  29  A. 
'  F  10  in  Map  29  A. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  223 

lucos^  to  take  to  flight,  leaving  there  all  they  had  in 
the  way  of  provisions,  munitions,  victuals,  and  prison- 
ers, and  they  fled  so  filled  with  fear  that  never  from 
that  day  to  this  did  they  dare  to  invade  the  province 
of  Uru2;uav.    .    .    ."  ^ 

In  this  last  statement  F^-  LoZx^k^xo  made  a  mistake, 
since  he  himself  relates,  in  another  part  of  his  work, 
that  on  March  9,  1652,  the  Paulistas,  divided  into 
four  bodies,  again  attacked  the  Missions  between  the 
rivers  Uruguay  and  Pai-auá,^  which  is  confirmed  by 
several  chroniclei's  and  some  as  yet  unpublished  docu- 
ments. 

The  chronicles  and  accounts,  either  printed  or  manu- 
script, of  the  Jesuits  of  Paraguay  and  those  of  S. 
Paulo,  in  Brazil,  testify  that  shortly  after  the  Span- 
iards and  their  missionaries  were  driven  from  the 
Province  of  Guayra  (1630-1632),  or, — to  speak  more 
precisely, — fi'om  1636  and  1638,  all  the  territory 
bounded  on  the  East  by  the  Paraná  and  on  the  South 
by  the  Uruguay,  was  under  the  sway  of  the  Paulistas. 
After  163§  they  freely  overran  all  the  lands  stretching 
to  the  South  and  East  of  the  Uruguay,  where  they 
were  only  twice  attacked:   the  first  time  in   1639,  at 

'  In  Brazil  the  name  of  mamelucos  is  given  to  half  castes,  resulting  from  the 
crossing  of  the  Caucasian  and  American  races.  The  name  is  a  corruption  of 
viembyruca,  which  means  child  of  an  Indian  mother.  These  mamelucos 
were  always  very  numerous  in  the  expeditions  from  S.  Paulo. 

The  expeditions  had  the  name  of  bandeii-a  (plural,  bandeiras),  and  the 
men  composing  them,  that  of  bandeirantes  (singular,  bandeirante). 

"  Historia  de  la  Conquista  del  Paraguay,  Rio  de  la  Plata  y  Tucunian, 
■written  by  Fr.  Pedro  Lozano,  of  the  Society  of  Jesus.  Concluded  in  1745, 
it  was  only  printed  at  Buenos  Aires  in  1874  by  D.  Andres  Lamas,  making  3 
vols.,  large  8°  .  The  passage  quoted  is  from  Chap.  X\^I.,  Lib.  III.,  of  \'o\. 
III.,  p.  430. 

3  Lozano,  Chap.  XIII.,  Lib.  III.  of  Vol.  II.,  p. 234  ;  Lcttrcs  Édifiantes, 
Vol.  XXI.,  year  1734,  p.  368  ;  CliAVt.l.E\oiyi,  Histoire  du  Paraguay,  Paris,  1756, 
3  vol.    4'?,  Vol.  II.,  p.  127.    It  is  unnecessary  to  make  further  quotations. 


224  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINK 

Caázapáininí,  l)et\veeii  the  Ijuhy  uml  the  Pinitiuy  ^  aud 
the  second  in  1G41,  in  tlie  fort  of  the  Tabaty,  as  was 
stated  already.  Of  the  second  of  these  rights  the 
chronicles  of  S.  Paulo  made  no  mention.  After  the 
first  (January  19,  1639),  it  is  known  that  both  sides 
declared  themselves  victorious.  The  Paulistas  were 
led  by  Antoííio  Bicudo,  and  the  Spaniards  and  Gua- 
ranys  by  the  Governor  of  Pai-aguay,  D.  Pedro  Lugo, 
and  by  F?^  xVlfaro,  who  was  killed  in  the  conflict. 

An  old  Paulista  itinerary,  preserved  to  this  day  and 
quoted  by  Vakniiagen,  Viscount  de  Porto-Seguro,'^ 
speaks  of  the  mountain  range  of  Bituruua,  ''which 
ends  in  the  Uruguay,"  and  of  the  plain  that  stretches 
there.  Vauniiagen  says  that  this  itinerary  is  an  obvious 
proof  that  the  ancient  Paulistas  knew  the  region 
called  in  modern  times  Campo  de  Palmas,  but  this 
proof,  as  has  just  been  shown,  is  not  the  only  one. 
Ibituruna  was,  in  fact,  the  name  given  in  the  XVIIth 
century  to  the  region  between  the  Uruguay  and  the 
Iguaçu,^  and  the  Bitunma  mountains  of  the  Paulista 
itinei'ary  could  only  })e  those  forming  the  watershed 
which  slopes  to  those  two  rivers.  Those  elevations 
of  the  ç»;round  connect  themselves  to  the  West  of  the 
sources  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  with  others  trending  from 
the  Great  Falls  of  the  Iguaçu  to  the  Great  Falls  of  the 
Uruguay. 

Having  reconquered  the  territories  which  they  be- 
lieved belonged  to  them,  the  Paulistas  next  occupied 
themselves  chiefly  in  the  discovery  and  working  of  the 

'  "...  in  Caasapaminiensem  agrum,"  says  Techo  (Lib.  XII.,  §  31). 
Ch.^rlevoix  wrote  in  error  Caarupáguazú. 

■^  Visconde  ue  Porto-Secjuro  (Varnhagen),  Historia  Geral  do  Brazil,  2 
edição,  p.  852. 

2  Map  No.  I,  Vol.  v.,  and  No.  i  A,  Vol.  VI. 


B  O  UNDA  RY  QUÊS  TI  ON.  2  2  5 

gold  mines  of  the  interior  of  Brazil  (Minas  Geraes  and 
Goyaz)  and  in  the  far  West  (Matto  Grosso).  The  Jesuits 
were  thus  able  to  return  to  the  East  bank  of  the  Uru- 
guay, removing  thither  in  1687  the  missions  of  S. 
Nicolas  and  S.  Miguel,  and  creating  five  others :  S. 
Luis  Gonzaga  (1687),  S.  Borja  (1690),  S.  Lorenzo 
(1691),  S.  Juan  Bautista  (1698),  and  S.  Angel  (1706). 

This  last,  to  the  North  of  the  Ijuhy,^  was  the  nearest 
to  the  territory  now  contested,  but  between  them  lay 
the  extensive  forests  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Uruguay, 
inhabited  by  savages. 

After  1706  the  Eastern  and  Northern  boundaries  of 
the  Spanish  occupation  in  the  territory  named  Misiones 
never  varied.  To  the  South,  the  forests  Limits  of  the 
occupied  by  the  savages  closed  all  com-  Spanish  Mis- 
munication  with  the  territory  now  claimed.  ^'°"^'  ^7o6. 
To  the  West  and  North  of  that  river,  S.  Xavier,  on  its 
right  bank,^  and  Corpus,  on  the  left  of  the  river 
Paraná,^  continued  to  be,  as  they  had  been  since  1641, 
the  most  advanced  Spanish  positions  and  the  nearest 
to  the  Brazilian  frontier  on  the  Pequiry  or  Pepiry, 
afterwards  Pepirv-Guaçú.  The  affluent  Mbororé'*  re- 
mained the  boundary  of  the  Spanish  possessions  on  the 
Upper  Uruguay.  Thence,  upwards,  the  Indians  of 
Misiones  did  not  venture  overland.  In  1759  they  still 
went  up  in  canoes  as  far  as  the  Itacaray,^  but  in  1788 
they  no  longer  went  so  near  the  Bi'azilian  frontier  in 
the  territory  now"  contested. 

All  this  is  affirmed  by  the  Spanish  Commissioners 

'  I  9  in  Map  No.  29  A. 
'  H  6,  in  Map  No.  29  A. 
^  F  5,  in  the  same  Map. 
■"  H  7,  Tbidetn. 
^  F  10,  Ibidem. 


220  BRAZIL  IA  A '-  A  R  GEN  TINE 

who  iiiiule  the  two  deuiarcutioiis  uiuler  the  Treaties  of 
1750  and  1777. 

Two  passages  of  the  Spanish  Dianj  of  the  first  de- 
niaieatioii,  relating  to  the  Mbororé  and  tlie  Itacaray,have 
already  been  transcribed  (pages  70  and  77  in  this  Vol.). 

In  the  Memoria  of  OrÁr.viDE  the  following  may  be 
read  in  a  note  taken  from  the  Spanish  Diary  of  1788: 

"  As  far  as  the  Itacaray  stream,  say  the  previous  de- 
marcators,  the  Indians  came  from  the  Villages  for  their 
supply  of  mate,  which  they  stack  and  take  down  on 
rafts  ....  Now  thet/  no  longer  go  so  far  since  they 
make  their  supplies  of  the  said  mate  hei'b  neai-er  the 
villao-e  of  San  Javier."  ^ 

And  in  the  Diarij  of  1789 : 

"At  length  we  arrived  at  a  sufficiently  full-flowing 
river  roliich  the  guides  called  Cehollati,  and  from  here  to 
the  Xorth  they  no  longer  l:)iow  the  country^  as  it  is 
only  from  this  river  to  the  South  that  the  mate  shrubs 
reach  where  they  are  accustomed  to  come  to  prepare 
their  supplies.     .     .     .  "  * 

This  river  Cebollaty,^  an  afliluent  of  the  left  bank  of 
the  Uruguay,  is  the  one  which  at  the  time  of  the  ])re- 
vious  demarcation,  in  1759,  was  known  as  the  Paricay, 
and  in  the  maps  of  1722  and  1732  of  the  Jesuits,  as 
well  as  in  those  of  d'Anville,  and  in  the  "Map  of  the 
the  Courts,"  appears  under  the  name  Uruguay-Pita, 
below  the  Great  Falls,  as  already  proved. 

Until  the  middle  of  the  XVIlIth  century  the  Jesuits 
of  Misiones  maintained  on  the  Uruguay,  near  the 
Yaboti  or  Pepiry-^Iini,' — above  the  Itacaray,  but  to  the 
West  of  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Uruguay,  and,  thei'e- 

'  Memoria  de  OyArvide,  in  Calvo,  Recetiil  Complct  de  Traitcs,  Vol.  X.,  74. 
'  Same  Memoria,  in  Calvo,  Vol.  IX.,  188. 
^  F  10,  in  Map  No.  29  A. 
•*  Ibidem. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  22/ 

fore,  of  the  Pepiiy  or  Pequiry, — a  post  of  observation 
to  o-ive  notice  of  the  movements  of  the  Brazilians  of  S. 
Paulo,  or  Paulistas. 

The  fact  is  confirmed  in  a  passage  already  quoted 
from  the  Diary  written  by  the  Spanish  Commissioners 
during  the  survey  of  1759  (page  79  in  this  Vol.). 

When  the  Spaniards  of  the  second  demarcation  were 
unable  to  find  a  single  guide  who  knew  the  Uruguay 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Cebollaty,  now  the  river  Turvo, 
upwards — much  less  the  territory  now  contested  be- 
tween the  Uruguay  and  the  Iguaçu, — the  Marquis  de 
LoRETO,  Viceroy  of  the  Spanish  Provinces  of  Rio  de  la 
Plata,  wrote  under  date  of  the  13th  November,  1788  : 

"  .  .  the  Royal  Instructions  direct,  that  the  Sur- 
veying Parties  shall  for  this  object  take  guides,  if  the 
Portuguese  Commissioner  has  not  any,  we  are  to  presume 
that  on  purpose  and  for  some  private  end  he  did  not 
seek  them,  since  from  that  place  he  could  have  more 
skilful  ones  than  we  can,  because  their  Paulistas  have 
navio-ated  the  Yç^uazú  as  far  as  its  confluence  with  the 
Paraná  and  even  a  part  of  tlie  latter,  down-stream,  as 
far  as  Misiones  ;  and  by  land  they  have  made  various 
explorations  through  all  those  regions,  Avhich  is  also 
confirmed  by  the  existence  of  the  path  which  you  say 
was  found  for  ascending  as  far  as  the  Great  Falls 
(Salto  Grande)  of  the  Paraná,  opened  through  the 
woods,  a  few  j^ears  ago,  by  the  said  Paulistas,  who  came 
down  to  reconnoitre  these  parts."  ^ 

'  Letter  of  the  Marquis  de  Loreto  to  the  Spanish  Commissioner  Diego 
DE  Alvear,  in  Cabrer,  Diário  de  la  Segunda  Subdivicion  de  Limites  Espaãola 
(Diary  of  the  2nd  Spanish  Subdivision  of  Limits)  Manuscript,  Vol.  I.,  p.  611  ; 
and  in  MiLlTON  Gonzalez,  El  Limite  Otiental  del  Território  de  Misiones 
(The  Eastern  Boundary  of  the  Territory  of  Misiones  ),No\.  II.,  p  262. 

The  Manuscript  of  Cabrer,  signed  by  the  author,  belongs  to  the  Brazilian 
Foreign  Office  and  is  in  the  keeping  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  at  Wash- 
ington. 


228  ^^-'1 ZILIAN-AKGEX  TINE 

The  rortiiguese  and  Spanish  Coiuuiissiouers,  diiriug 
the  hist  century,  and  the  Brazilians  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission a[)|>(>inted  under  tlie  Treaty  of  1885,  found  at 
various  i)oints  of  the  dis})uted  territory  evident  signs 
of  Brazilian  domination  in  the  XVllth  century. 

In  the  Dianj  of  the  first  demarcation,  the  following 
passage  occurs  under  date  of  the  6th  March,  1759  : 

"  Not  far  from  this  second  reef,  on  the  bank,  an  old 
mortar  was  found  which,  from  its  make,  the  Paulistas 
recognized  as  having  belonged  to  their  peo[)le,  who 
had  probably  left  it  behind  in  one  of  their  former 
malocas,  i.  e.,  the  ini'oads  which  they  used  to  make 
against  the  Indians  of  these  settlements  ;  and  there  was 
also  seen  a  small  and  very  old  cleai'ing  of  trees,  which 
was  attributed  to  the  same." 

In  the  Spanish  Diary  of  the  second  demarcation, 
this  passage  is  found  with  reference  to  the  encamp- 
ment of  the  11th  December,  1789,  between  the  rivulet 
of  Cori'edeira  Comprida  to  the  West,  and  the  mouth  of 
the  Chapecó  (Pequirí-Guazu  of  the  Argentines)  to  the 
East^: 

"...  and  here  we  slept,  on  the  11th  of  December, 
and  we  found  various  potsherds  of  well  baked  earthen 
pots  with  ornaments,  Avhich  doubtless  must  have  be- 
longed to  the  Paulistas  when  they  frequented  this 
river  to  make  their  incursions  into  the  settlements  of 
Misiones  .  .  ."  ^ 

Near  the  headwatei'S  of  the  river  Saudade,  a  Western 
affluent  of  the  Chapecó,  and  in  the  longitude  of  the 
mouth  of  this  river,  are  to  be  found  even  to  this  day, 
in  Campo  Erê,  the  so-called  Muros,  which  are  evidently 
the  remains  of  an  old  fortification.     On  the  summit 

'  F  4  in  Map  No.  25  A,  and  F  12,  in  No.  29  A. 
*  OyArvide,  Memoria  in  Calvo,  IX.,  213. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  229 

of  a  hill  a  truncated  coue  is  to  be  seen  whose  upper 
part  consists  of  a  platform  36  metres  in  diameter,  and 
whose  slope  now  is  3  metres  in  height.  The  First 
Brazilian  Commissioner  personally  explored  the  place 
in  1887,  and  ordered  excavations  to  be  made  in  the 
neighborhood,  which  revealed  around  that  position 
an  entrenchment  formed  of  a  double  circular  palisade 
covered  with  earth. 

Thus,  then,  besides  the  fort  of  the  Pepiry,  which,  at 
first,  the  Jesuits  called  Apiteriby,  the  Paulistas  had  in 
this  territory  another  enti-euched  encampment. 

The  Indians  of  Brazil,  Paraguay,  and  the  Kiver 
Plate  did  not  construct  buildings  of  earth  or  stone. 
Their  villages  were  protected  only  by  a  circular  pali- 
sade. Only  at  the  mouth  of  the  Amazonas  and  on  the 
island  of  Marajó  which,  in  pre-Columbian  times,  was 
inhabited  by  a  people  of  more  advanced  civilization, 
some  artificial  mounds  are  found,  which  served  as 
burying-places. 

The  ancient  fortifications  referred  to  cannot  be  attri- 
buted to  the  Spaniards  or  to  the  Jesuits  of  the  Pi'ovince 
of  Paraguay.  The  latter  never  had  missions  or  settle- 
ments in  that  territory,  and  always  kept  far  away  from 
it,  only  maintaining  in  its  neighborhood  the  post 
which  has  been  mentioned  to  watch  the  Paulistas. 
The  way  followed  in  the  migration  of  1631  shows  the 
care  with  which  the  Missionaries  avoided  crossing  this 
territory.  Ten  years  later,  when  they  went  to  attack 
the  fort  of  the  Paulistas  on  the  Pepiry,  ^^^  ^  aniards 
the  Guaranys  of  Misiones  were  momen-  never  trod  the 
arily    on   the     frontier     of     Brazil.      The   territory  now 

.  contested. 

Spaniards,   lioiuever,  never  trod  the   terri- 
tory now   contested  or   its  neighhorhood  except  on  the 


230  B  R  A  ZI  LI  A  N-A  KG  E  X  Tl  X  E 

tivo  occasions  zuJicn  tJicy  ivent  zvith  tJie  Portuguese  to 
make  the  demarcation  under  the  Treaties  of  /750  a7id 
1777. 

There  is  uo  document  whatever  by  a\  liicli  the  pres- 
ence of  other  Sjianiards  in  this  tei'i'itory  during  the 
thi'ee  centuries  com[)i'ising  the  coU)nial  period  can  be 
proved. 

In  some  modern  Spanish  and  Argentine  maps,  the 
course  is  erroneously  marked  along  the  river  Iguaçu,  of 
the  famed  Spanish  expedition  led  by  Alyaii  Nunez 
Cabeza  de  Vaca,  "  Adelantado  "  and  Governor  of  the 
Rio  de  la  Plata,  Avhich,  setting  out  at  the  end  of  1541 
from  the  coast  of  Santa  Catharina,  continued  by  land 
as  far  as  the  city  of  iVsuncion  of  Paraguay,  and 
reached  its  destination  in  the  following  year. 

Map  VI.  of  the  Atlas  de  la  Confederation  Argentine 
by  Martin  de  Moussy  marks  this  course  along  the 
Northern  bank  of  the  Iguaçu;  the  Carta  Geographica 
de  la  Provinda  de  Corrientes^  dated  1865,^  and  the 
Map  constructed  in  1802  by  Cabkee,^  repi'esent  it  by 
the  South  bank,  passing,  therefore,  through  the  dis- 
puted teri'itory.  But  in  the  Map  by  Cabker  itself 
there  is  a  note  of  the  author  exactly  describing  the 
itinerary. 

Lately,  wishing  to  correct  the  error  of  a  Bi-azilian 
writer  who  supposed  that  Cabeza  de  Vaca  had  passed 
along  the  old  Pequiry  or  Pei)iry,  the  affluent  of  the 
Uruguay,  Dk.  Zeballos  endeavored  to  show  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  direction  of  the  march,  the  Spanish 
expedition  could  only  have  crossed  the  Chapeco  or 
Pequiri-Guazii  to  reach  the  river  Iguaçu. 

'  Reproduced  under  No.  24  A,  Vol.  VI. 

*  The  original  manuscript  belonging  to  the  Brazilian  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs  is  in  the  keeping  of  the  Brazilian  Special  Mission  at  Washington. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION:  23 1 

The  clistiDguisbed  Argentine  writer  said  : 

"If  on  the  official  Map  of  the  disputed  Misiones 
that  I'oiite  is  traced  in  a  W.N.  W.  direction  it  will  take 
us  to  the  Iguazii  by  cutting  the  Pepiry-Guazu  (which 
the  Argentines  maintain)  ;  whilst  drawing  it  from  the 
Peqoiry  claimed  by  the  Brazilians,  below  the  Uruguay- 
Pita,  it  leads  [)erforce  to  the  river  Paraná,  without 
reaching  the  Iguazii,  unless  the  march  of  the  expedition 
is  changed  to  the  North.  Therefore  the  river  Pequiry 
which  Alvae  Nunez  crossed  was  that  to  the  East,  /.  e.y 
that  of  the  Argentines ;  and  it  is  proved  by  the  very 
quotation  of  that  famous  Adelantado,  brought  forward 
by  the  Baeox  de  Capanema  that,  in  1541,  the  S[)aniards 
and  the  Portuguese  knew  as  the  Pequiry  the  river 
w^hich  empties  itself  into  the  Uruguay  above  the 
Uruguay-Pita.  .  .  . "  ^ 

The  contending  parties  in  this  discussion,  both 
the  Brazilian  and  the  Argentine,  made  a  mistake  in 
confusing  two  rivers  of  the  same  name  :  one  the  Pequiry, 
an  affluent  of  the  left  bank  of  the  Paraná,  which 
was  the  river  crossed  by  Cabeza  de  Vaca,  and  the 
other  the  affluent  of  the  right  bank  of  the  Uruguay, 
w^hich  bore  that  name,  but  of  which  nothing  was  known 
when  the  expedition  in  question  took  place. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  those  Spaniards  did  not  tread 
any  part  of  the  territory  now  disputed  and,  therefore, 
that  they  could  not  have  seen  either  the  Chapecó,  as 
De.  Zeballos  asserts,  or  the  Pepiry-Guaçii,  formerly 
Pepir}^  or  Pequiry,  as  was  supposed  by  the  Brazilian 
contestant.     It  is  sufficient  to  peruse  Chapters  VI.  to 


'  Misiones,  §  VI.,  articles  written  and  signed  by  Dr.  Estanisl.\o  S. 
Zeb.\llos,  published  in  the  Prensa  of  Buenos-Ayres  (April,  1892),  and  after- 
wards in  a  pamphlet  edited  by  Peuser. 


232  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  R  GEN  TINE 

XI.  of  the  Coiiioitarios,  written  by  Peho  IIkkxaxdez, 
secretary  to  the  Governor  Cabezade  Vaca/  It  is  seen 
there  tlint  the  exjieditiou  started  from  the  i-iver  Yta- 
biicu,  now  ItapiiCLi,  on  the  littoral  of  Santa  Catharina, 
ascended  the  maritime  rançxe  of  mountains  named 
Serra  do  Mar,  went  througli  the  plains  of  the  tal)le- 
land  of  Curityba,  crossed  over  from  the  left  to  tlie 
right  bank  of  the  Iguaçu,  thence  over  the  Tibagy  (Ti- 
l:)agi,  Chapter  VII.)  and  follo\ved  on  by  the  left  bank 
of  this  affluent  of  the  Paranapanema  in  the  direction 
of  N.N.W.  Afterwards  it  crossed  several  i-ivei-s,  among 
them  tlie  Pequiry,  an  affluent  of  the  Paraná,  and 
going  in  a  Southerly  direction,  parallel  to  the  course 
of  the  latter  river,  reached  the  right  l)ank  of  the 
Iguaçii  immediately  above  its  Salto  Grande  (Gi'eat 
Falls).  Then  it  came  down  the  Iguaçu  as  far  as  its 
confluence  with  the  Paraná,  crossed  this  i-iver  and 
proceeded  across  the  Pai'aguay. 

All  the  Spanish  histoi'ians  who  have  spoken  of  this 
expedition  have  perfectly  interpreted  the  Comentários 
of  Pero  HerjSTAISTDEz.  The  most  ancient  chronicler  of 
Paraguay  and  the  River  Plate,  Rri  Diaz  de  Guzmax, 
also  describes  it  exactly,  by  the  Atil)ajiva  (the  Comen- 
tários say  Tibagi),  Ubay  (Ivahy),  Pequiry,  and  after- 
wards along  the  Paraná,  in  a  Southerly  direction.-^    Tlie 


'  Comentários  de  Alvar  N^tinez  cabeça  de  vaca  adelantado  y gouernador  de  la 
prouincia  dei  Rio  de  la  Plata.  Scriptos por  Pero  Hernandez  scrixiano  y  secre- 
tario de  la  prouincia.      .      .      .      J^alladolid,  ijS5  "'  4°- 

The  Congressional  Eibrary  at  Washington  has  this  first  edition  and  a  later 
one.     There   is    also  a  French    translation    published   in    1S37  by    Tkrnaux 

COMPANS. 

^Historia  Argentina  del  descubrimiento,  poblacion  y  conquista  de  las  Pro- 
vindas del  Rio  de  la  Plata,  by  Rui  DiAZ  DE  Guzman  (Lib.  II.,  Cap.  I.), 
written  and  concluded  at  Charcas  in  1612,  and  printed  by  Angf.lis  in  his 
Colleccion  de  Obras  y  Documentos  relativos  d  la  Historia  antigua  \  moderna  de 
las  Provs.  del  Rio  de  la  Plata,  Vol.1.,  Buenos-Aires,  1836. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  233 

Dutch  and  French  cartographers  of  the  XYIth  and 
XVIIth  centuries  marked  at  once  on  their  maps  of 
Paraguay  the  rivers  and  settlements  of  Indians  and 
the  principal  geographical  and  ethnographical  names 
mentioned  by  Pero  Hernandez/ 

The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  modern  historians 
who  have  treated  of  this  expedition  after  reading  the 
Comentários  written  under  the  supervision  of  Cabeza 
DE  Vaca,  which  are  the  first  and  only  incontestable 
source  of  information.  Among  these  is  D^  Luis 
DoMiNGUEz,  now  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  the  Argentine  Republic  in  London.^ 

The  illustrious  author  of  the  pamphlet  Misione.s^vRS 
in  error  when  he  supposed  he  had  met  with  a  Si)anish 
discoverer  of  the  tei-ritory  now  contested,  and  when  he 
asserted  that  in  1541  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
knew  under  the  name  of  river  "Pequiry,  the  one  which 
empties  itself  above  the  Uruguay-Pita." 

The  Spanish  expedition  of  1541  never  even  saw  that 
territory,  and  in  the  Comentários  themselves  mention 
is  made  of  the  Portuguese  who  ten  years  before  passed 
there  on  their  way  down  the  Iguaçu,  when,  by  order 
of  Martin  Affonso  de  Souza,  commander  of  the  Por- 
tuguese S(|uadron  in  Brazilian  waters,  they  went  to 
explore  the  interior. 

LozANO  stated  in  1745  that  no  Spaniards  ever 
saw  the  Pepiry,^  and   the  Pepiry  of  Lozano  and  the 

'  Among  others  the  maps  of  Paraguay  by  JoDOCUS  Hondius,  J.  Janssonius, 
and  G.  Blaeu,  in  which  these  names  are  met,  quoted  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Comentários : — Ytabuca  (Ytabucu  in  the  Comentários),  Anniriri  (Aniriri), 
Cipopay  (Cipoyay),  Tocanguazu  (Tocanguaçú),  Tibagí,  Taquarí,  Abangobí, 
Tocanguzir  (Tocangucir),  in  latitude  24°  30'  according  to  the  Comentários, 
Piquerí  affluent  of  the  Paraná,  and  the  river  Yguaçú  (Iguaçu),  with  its  Salto 
(Falls). 

^  Historia  Argentina  by  Luis  L.  DoMiNGi'EZ,  4''.'  Edition,  Buenos-Aires 
1870,  p.  58. 

*  Hist,  de  la  Conqnisia  del  Paraguay,  Lib.  I.,  Cap.  2. 


234  BRAZILIAX-AKGENTINE 

Jesuits  Avas  a  river  in  the  present  Argentine  territory 
of  Misiones. 

The  territoiy  now  contested  was  indisputably  dis- 
covered })y  Brazilians,  and  was  always  an  integral  part 
of  Brazil.  Evidence  of  its  administrative  occupation 
will  be  given  further  on. 

X. 

The  Argentine  claim  to   the  Brazilian   territory  to 
the  East  of  the  Pepiry-Gua(,-ii  and  the  Santo  Antonio 
is  of  very  recent  date. 
_.    ,        ,.  In  1857,  on  the  initiative  of  the  Brazilian 

First  negotia-  ' 

tionfora         Government,    the    first    negotiations  for  a 
Treaty  of         Treat}'  of  Limits  between  the  two  countries 

Limits.  *  ^  ,         ^-^.  /I     -r»  <•        n 

were  o[)eued  at  the  City  oi  rarana  (Entre 
Rios),  which  was  the  provisional  capital  of  the  Argen- 
tine Confederation. 

The  Conferences  commenced  at  the  end  of  October 
of  that  year.  Councillor  Pakaniios,  afterwards  Vis- 
count DE  Rio-Bkanco,  being  the  Plenipotentiary  of 
Brazil,  while  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  Argentine 
Confedei-ation  were  the  Minister  of  the  Interior, 
D*:^  Santiago  Deiíc^ui,  and  the  Minister  for  Foreign 
Aifairs,  Di^  Berxaué  Lopez. 

On  the  26th  November  the  Brazilian  Minister  j^re- 
sented  a  Memorandum,  in  which  he  stated  brieiiy  the 
principles  deferided  by  the  Bjazilian  Government  in 
the  settlement  of  boundaries  with  States  of  Spanish 
origin,  the  divergence  which  had  occurred  between  the 
Commissioners  of  Portugal  and  Spain  in  the  demarca- 
tion made  under  the  Treaty  of  1777,  and  the  right  of 
Brazil  to  the  line  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Santo  An- 
tonio located  in  1759  and  1700. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  235 

On  the  14th  December  of  the  same  yeai-,  1857,  the 
Plenipotentiaries  sio;ned   a  Treaty,  whose 

.  .  .         .  Treaty  of  1857. 

first  articles  described  the  frontier  in  the 
followino;  manner: 

''  Art.  1. — The  two  High  Contracting  Parties,  having 
agreed  in  defining  their  respective  limits,  concur  in 
declaring  and  recognizing  as  the  frontier  of  Brazil  and 
the  Argentine  Confederation  between  the  Kivers  Uru- 
guay and  Paraná,  that  which  is  specified  beloAv : 

''  The  teri'itory  of  the  Empire  of  Brazil  is  separated 
from  that  of  the  Argentine  Confederation  by  the  river 
Uruguay,  the  whole  of  the  right  or  Western  bank  be- 
louiriníí  to  the  Confederation,  and  the  left  or  Eastei'n 
bank  to  Bi'azil,  from  the  mouth  of  the  afiluent  Quara- 
hini  to  that  of  the  Pepiíy-Guaçú  whei'e  the  Brazilian 
possessions  occupy  both  banks  of  the  river  Ui'uguay. 

"  The  boundary  line  follows  along  the  waters  of  the 
Pepiry-Guaçii  up  to  its  principal  soui'ce  ;  from  this  it  con- 
tinues, along  the  highest  ground,  to  the  princi|)al  head- 
waters of  the  Santo  Antonio,  and,  by  this  river,  as  far 
as  its  entry  into  the  Iguaçu  or  Rio  Grande  de  Curitiba, 
and  by  this  as  far  as  its  confluence  with  the  Paraná. 

"The  land  which  the  I'ivers  Pe})iri-Guaçú,  Santo  x\n- 
tonio,  and  Iguaçu  separate  belongs  to  Brazil  on  the 
Eastern  side,  and,  on  the  Western  side,  to  the  Argen- 
tine Confederation,  the  waters  of  the  two  first  men- 
tioned rivers  being  the  conuuon  property  of  the  two 
nations,  throughout  their  course,  and  those  of  the 
Iguaçu  only  from  the  confluence  of  the  Santo  Antonio 
to  the  Paraná. 

"  Art.  2. — The  two  Hiç^h  Contractins:  Parties  declare, 
in  order  to  avoid  any  doubt,  although  the  designations 
of  Article  1  are  now  well  known,  that  the  rivers  Pe[)iri- 


236  BKA  ZII.  IA  X-A  R  GEN  TINE 

Guavu  :iiul  Santo  Antonio  mentioned  in  the  said  Ar- 
ticle are  the  same  whicli  were  surveyed  in  1759  by  the 
Delimitation  Commissioners  under  the  Treaty  of  the 
13th  of  Januarv,  1750,  concluded  between  Portu2:al 
and  8[)ain.'" 

This  Treaty  was    discussed   and   approved   by    the 
,  Arixentine  Senate  at  a  secret  sitting:  the 

The  Treaty  of  ^ 

1857  approved -^"^th  July,  1858,  and  by  the  Chamber  of 
by  the  Argen-  Deputies,  at  a  secret  sitting,  also,  on  the 
ongre  s.  24^ jj  September  of  the  same  year. 

Two  days  later  the  Law  of  Ap])robation  was  pro- 
nuilojated  in  the  foUowins:  terms  : 

"The  Senate  and  the  Chamber  of  Deptities  of  the 
Argentine  Confederation,  assembled  in  Congress,  grant 
their  sanction  and  the  force  of  Law  to  the  following  : 

"Art.  1. — The  provisions  contained  in  the  five  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Treaty  of  Limits  concluded  between  the 
National  Executive  Power  and  His  Majesty  the  Em- 
])eror  of  Brazil,  through  their  respective  Plenipotenti- 
aries, in  this  Ca[)ital  on  the  1-lth  of  December  of  the 
year  last  passed,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  are  approved. 

"  AiíT.  2. — It  is  understood  that  the  rivers  Pepirl 
Guazú  and  San  Antonio,  which  are  determined  as  the 
boundaries  in  Article  1  of  the  Treaty,  are  those  lying 
nioi'e  to  the  East,  bearing  those  names,  as  shown  by  the 
operation  referred  to  in  Article  2  of  the  same. 

"AnT.  8. — This  shall  be  communicated  to  the  Execu- 
tive Power. 

"  Hall  of  Sessions  of  the  Congress  at  Paraná,  the 
provisional  Capital  of  the  Argentine  Nation,  the 
twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month  of  September  one 
thousand   eight   hundred  and   fifty-eight. 


BOUND  A  KV  QUESriOX.  237 

"  Pascual  Echague. — CaelosM.  Saravia,  Secretary. 
— Mateo  Luque. — Bexja^iix  de  Igarzabal,  Secretary. 

*'  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs. — Pai-aná,  26th  Sep- 
tember, 1858. 

"  The  above  shall  be  observed  as  a  Law  and  pub- 
lished. ,    T- 

"    URQUIZA. 

"  Berxabe  Lopez."  - 

The  Argentine  Government  allowed  the  second 
period,  which  it  had  asked  by  a  Note  of  September 
10,  1858,  for  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica-  Discussion 
tions  of  the  Treaty,  to  expire.  On  the  14th     relating  to  the 

''  ^        *-  exchange  of 

of  June  of  the  following  year,  the  Minis-  ratifications, 
ter  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Bedoya,  informed  the  Brazilian 
Legation  at  Paraná  that  the  Argentine  Government 
had  resolved  to  defer  that  formality  until  after  the 
conclusion  of  the  contest  with  the  Province  of  Buenos- 
Aires  : 

"  His  Excellency  the  Vice-President  ~  has  directed 
me  to  communicate  to  Your  Excellency  that,  in  order 
that  the  ratification  of  the  j^ending  Treaties  on  Extra- 
dition and  Limits  may  have  the  favorable  termination 
which  the  Government  of  the  Confederation  earnestly 
desires,  he  thinks  it  expedient  to  abstain  fi'om  openino' 
now  a  new  negotiation  for  the  indispensable  extension 
of  the  time  in  which  this  act  is  to  take  place,  delaying 
it  until  the  settlement  of  the  Buenos- Aii-es  question." 

Another  passage  of  the  same  Note  explains  the 
motive  for  this  adjournment  sine  die : 

^  Transcribed  in  Vol.  II.  of  this  Statement  (page  227)  from  the  Memoria  del 
Ministério  de  Relaciones  Exteriores,  Buenos-Aires,  1892,  p.  27  ("  Report  of 
the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  1892  "). 

-  Salvador  Maria  del  Carril,  in  the  absence  of  the  President,  General 
Urquiza. 


238  BRAZILIAN-ARGEXTINE 

"  This  unfavorable  result  auainst  wliicli  the  Govern- 
ment desires  to  pi-ovide,"  said  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  "  will  present  itself  to  Your  Excellency  with 
a  greater  degree  of  probability,  if  you  remember  the 
serious  opi^osition   which  the  Govei'ument 

Why  the  Treaty  •    1       •  1  /  ,1  1  •    i  i 

of  1857  was  not  uict  With  HI  thc  Lhauibers,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  the  discussion  was  carried 
on  under  the  impression  that  the  sanction  of  those 
Treaties  implied  the  condition  that  the  Government  of 
His  Imperial  Majesty  would  accord  to  that  of  the 
Confederation  its  moral  and  material  support,  in  order 
to  bring  about  tlie  re-incorporatiou  of  Buenos- Aires 
into  the  bosom  of  the  Nation." 

B}^  this  delay,  it  was  hoped  to  bring  about  a  Bra- 
zilian intervention  into  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Con- 
federation with  the  object  of  aiding  General  Urquiza 
to  subjugate  the  Province  of  Buenos-Aires  by  force  of 
arms.  The  Brazilian  Government,  however,  preferred 
to  hold  entirely  aloof  from  this  civil  war. 

Councillor  J.  M.  do  íVmaeal,  the  Brazilian  Minister 
at  Paraná,  replied  on  the  1st  August  to  the  Argentine 
Note  of  14th  June,  18Õ9. 

"  The  Treaty  of  Limits,"  he  said,  "  recognizes  the 
boundary  designated  both  by  the  uti  possidetis  of  the 
two  countries  and  by  the  former  stipulations  between 
Portugal  and  Spain. 

''  It  is  the  same  divisional  line  which  is  drawn  on  the 
chorographical  map  of  the  Confederation,  lately  pub- 
lished by  order  of  the  Argentine  Government. 

"The  Imperial  Government,  as  w^ell  as  the  under- 
signed, dee[)ly  regret  that  agreements  of  such  a  nature, 
initiated  so  long  since,  and  concluded  when  internal 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  239 

peace  still  subsisted  in  the  Argentine  Confederation, 
should  seem  to  the  Argentine  Congress  the  prelimina- 
ries of  stipulations  which  were  entirely  alien  from  the 
subject.  This  presumption,  however,  if  perchance  it 
may  have  influenced  some  persons,  could  not  do  so 
more  completely  than  the  Justice  of  the  very  acts  which 
it  was  sought  to  approve,  the  permanent  interests  they 
guaranteed,  and  the  importance  of  good  relations  be- 
tween Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Confederation. 

"  His  Majesty's  Government  would  therefore  gladly 
believe  that  the  vote  of  Congress  was  dictated  by  an 
accurate  appreciation  of  those  agreements,  and  that,  if 
any  external  influence  has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  its 
mind,  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Government  of 
the  Confederation,  so  amicably  expressed  in  the  follow- 
ing words  of  the  Message  of  1st  May  of  last  year : 

"  The  Government  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
"  Brazil  have  given  us  an  unequivocal  proof  of  their  de- 
"  sire  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  which  unite  the  Empire 
"  and  the  Argentine  Confederation.  Both  Governments, 
"  sharing  these  enlightened  and  patriotic  views,  have 
^'  agreed  upon  some  conventions  which  frontier  inter- 
"  course,  reciprocal  trade,  and  fluvial  navigation  i-equired 
"  in  their  mutual  interest  and  in  that  of  other  nations. 
"  To  this  end  a  Special  Mission  was  sent  to  this  City 
'■'■  and,  owing  to  the  good  disposition  of  both  Govern- 
"  ments  and  to  the  merits  of  their  worthy  Plenipoten- 
"  tiaries,  provision  was  made  for  the  necessity  both 
"  countries  felt  of  Treaties  finally  determining  their  re- 
^'spective  boundaries,  assuring  the  extradition  of  ci'ini- 
"inals,  and  applying  to  the  great  aflluents  of  the  River 
^'  Plate  the  i)rineiples  by  wliich  fluvial  navigation  is 
"  regulated  in  Europe." 


240  BRAZILlAiW-ARGENTlNE 

"  Approved  as  these  couveutious  Lave  been  by  the 
Goveriimeiít  and  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  what 
is  wantinçr  to  «rive  them  full  effect  \  Only  the  exchano'e 
of  1  a tifi cations  by  the  Conti'acting  Parties. 

"  The  time  fixed  for  this  foj-mality  has  expired,  and 
this  is  the  obstacle  the  Argentine  Government  sees  to 
the  conclusion  of  so  solemn  and  necessary  agreements. 

"The  undersigned  begs,  in  the  name  of  his  Govern- 
ment, that  the  Government  of  the  Confederation  will 
be  pleased  to  reconsider  its  decision. 

"  The  time  for  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  a 
Treaty  is  a  transitory  and  eventual  provision.  Its 
strict  observance,  as  well  as  its  modification,  is  an  act 
of  mei'e  execution  which,  liowever,  does  not  depend  on 
the  Legislative  Power.  Since  the  two  contracting 
Governments  ai'e  agreed  in  this  respect,  nothing  more 
is  necessary,  and  neither  of  them  can  \vith  justice  re- 
fuse to  carry  out  what  was  agreed  upon  and  is  api)roved 
by  the  competent  Powers,  merely  because  the  time  de- 
termined for  the  exchaniie  of  the  instruments  of  that 
approbation  has  elapsed. 

"  As  a  rule,  international  acts  do  not  begin  to  be  ef- 
fective before  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  but  the 
time  determined  for  this  formality  is  not  a  matter  for 
legislation,  it  is  an  act  which  belongs  by  its  nature  and 
by  universal  custom  to  the  Executive  Power.     .     .     ." 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Treaty  of  1857 
remained  of  no  effect  foi*  the  want  of  the  formality 
of  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  it  is  never- 
the^Treaty  of  theless  a  documeut  of  the  greatest  his- 
1857,  although  torical  importance  in  the  study  of  this 
it  did  not  be-   ^  inasmuch     as    it    proves    that     the 

come  effective.  .  .  i      t  i 

Argentine  Government  m  concluding  that 
agreement,  and  the  Argentine  Congress  in  approving 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  24I 

it,  expressly  recognized,  at  that  date,  the  right  of 
Bi'azil  to  the  boundary  of  Sauto  Antonio,  Pepiry- 
Guaçú,  and  Uruguay,  a  right  already  recognized 
tacitly,  seeing  that  from  1810  to  1858, — during  48 
years, — the  Ai'gentiue  Gov^ernment  never  formulated 
any  clíiim  or  [>rotest  of  any  sort  manifesting  that  it 
had  any  pretensions  to  more  Easterly  boundaries  than 
those. 

The  debate  in  the  two  Chambers  of  the  Argentine 
Congress  cannot  be  known,  because  it  was  held  in 
secret  sittings  at  which  stenographers  were  its  discussion 
not  present.  A  ne\vspaper,  El  Naeioiml  in  the  Argen- 
Argentino,  of  Paraná,  published  an  abridged  *^"^  Congress, 
and  incorrect  report  of  the  discussion  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies. 

What  is  known  from  that  summary  is  that  there 
was  in  the  Chamber  a  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  recommending  the  rejection  Examination 
of  the  Treaty;  and  that  the  Chamber,  of  the  law  of 
having  heard  the  Minister  for  Foreign  proving  the 
Affairs,  rejected  the  Report  and  approved  Treaty  of 
the  proposal  of  the  Senate  sanctioning  the  ^  ^^' 

same  Treaty.  It  is  known,  moreover,  from  the  corres- 
pondence regarding  the  term  for  the  exchange  of 
ratifications,  that  both  the  Brazilian  and  the  Argentine 
Governments  considered  the  agreement  as  fully  ap- 
proved, although  it  is  now  sought  to  demonstrate  that 
a  clause  of  Article  2  of  the  Approbatory  Law  modified 
the  agreed  boundary,  substituting  for  the  rivers  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio  two  others  moi'e  to  the  East. 
If  such  a  substitution  of  rivers  could  have  resulted 
from  the  votes  of  the  two  Chambers,  the  Treaty  would 
not  have  been  approved.  The  Argentine  Govern- 
ment would  not  have  been  able  to  say,  in  that  case,  as 


242  B  KA  Zl  LI  A  X-A  NG  E  N  TI  N E 

it  said  in  the  Note  of  September  10,  1858,  that 
the  Treaty  of  Limits  had  passed  from  the  Senate  to 
the  Chamber  of  Repi-esentatives ;  nor  wonld  it,  in 
another  Note  of  June  14,  1859,  have  alluded  to  the 
approval  of  this  Treaty  and  of  the  Treaty  of  Extradi- 
tion by  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  merely  deferring 
the  arrangement  of  a  time  for  the  exchange  of  ratifica- 
tions till  the  close  of  the  campaign  against  the  Province 
of  Buenos-Aires. 

The  Mtmorki   (Report)  presented   in    1892  to  the 

Ar^'entine  Congress  ))y  the  Ministei-  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

attached    great    importance    to  the  clause 

Reply  to  an      contained  in  Article  2  of  the  Law  of  Sep- 

explanation 

of  1892.  tember  2b,  I808.    ilie  Deputy  (jtutiekkez, 

who  opposed  that  Treaty,  had  said,  in  the 
meantime,  and  with  much  reason,  during  the  sitting  of 
the  24th  September,  that  this  Article  was  drawn  up 
"in  terms  that  meant  nothing." 

Art.  2  of  the  Approbatory  Law  says  : 

"  It  is  understood  that  the  rivers  Pepiri-Guazii  and 
San  Antonio  which  are  designated  as  boundaries  in  the 
1st  Article  of  the  Treaty,  are  tlio><e  lying  more  to  the 
East  J  bearing  those  names,  as  shaivn  by  the  operation 
referred  to  in  Article  2  of  the  same^ 

The  operation  refeiTed  to  in  Article  2  of  the  Treaty 
of  I8Õ7  is  the  survey  of  1759,  and  the  two  rivers  then 
surveyed  and  demarcated  are  indisputably  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçú  and  the  Santo  Antonio  defended  as  its  boun- 
dary by  Brazil.  This  is  admitted  by  the  Argentine 
Government,  and  was  acknowledged  in  their  Diaries 
by  the  Spanish  Commissioners  of  the  Second  Sur- 
vey. In  the  Map  by  Cabretí,  and  in  other  Spanish 
maps  of    the    beginning  of    this  centuiy,  the  Pe[)iry- 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  243 

Guaçíi  is  designated  as  the  ^^  Pepiry-Gvazxi  of  the 
])re  V  io  us  siti  'veiforsP 

To  the  East  of  the  Pepiíy-Guaçú  and  of  tlie  S.  An- 
tonio there  are  no  rivers  bearing  those  names.  There 
are  the  two  rivers  discovered  in  1788  and  1791.  To 
the  last  the  Spanish  Commissioners  never  gave  any 
other  name  than  San  Antonio  Guazú,  thns  distin- 
guishing it  from  the  San  Antonio  of  1759.  The  river 
of  1788  they  wished  to  call  Pepirí-Guazú  or  Pepiry- 
Guazú  (Pepiry-Guaçii),  saying  that  the  one  which  had 
borne  that  name  since  1759  and  1760  was  not  the  true 
river  designated  in  the  Treaty  of  1750 ;  but  in  the  end 
they  decided  to  adopt  the  name  of  Pequirí-Guazú,  as 
may  be  seen  in  the  Memoria  of  Oyáryide,  and  in  the 
three  inscriptions  that  Spanish  Commissioner  left  indif- 
ferent [)]aces  when  he  sui'veyed  its  course.^  The  Argen- 
tine Government  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  this  distinc- 
tion of  names  and  does  not  dispute  it,  as  an  examination 
of  the  Treaties  of  1885  and  1889  will  show. 

The  Portuguese  and  Spanish  Commissioners  who,  in 
1759  and  1760,  made  the  survey  under  the  Treaty 
of  1750,  did  not  reach  as  far  as  the  rivers  of  the 
present  Argentine  pretension. 

^  "  Invent  quern  diligit  et  Peqtiiri-Guazii,  12  Diciembre  178c  "  {Memoria  by 
Oyárvide  in  C.  Calvo,  Recueil  Historique  complet  des  Traite's  .  .  .  de  iotis 
les  Etats  cotnpris  entre  le  Golfedu  Mexique  et  le  Cap  de  Horn,  Vol.  IX.,  215). 

"  Tenia  eiim  ;  nee  dimittam  Peqtiiri-Gt(azti.    10  de  Enero  ijgo  "  (IX.,  272). 

"  Eundawenta  ejus  in  montilnis  Sanctis,  Fiqiiin'-Gnaz/i,  /y  y it  nit  Jjoi  " 
(X.,  II). 

At  the  mouth  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  (not  Pequirí-Guazú),  the  boundary  of 
Brazil,  the  Spanish  Geographer  Gi'NDIN  had  left,  on  the  13th  August,  1788, 
the  following  inscription  on  a  plate  of  copper  ordered  by  the  Spanish  Com- 
missioner Varel.'V  y  Ulloa  : 

"  Hucnsque  auxiliatus  est  nol'is  Dens.  Pepiri-Guazii,  i-jSS"  (Letters  of  the 
i^i  Portuguese  Commissioner  Veiga  Cahr.al,  of  the  22".'^  January,  1789,  to 
the  \^\  Spanish  Commissioner,  and  of  the  20"'  July,  1790,  to  the  Viceroy  of 
Buenos-Aires.) 


244  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

An  exaiiiiiialion  of  the  cartograpliical  documeuts 
anterior  to  1750  sliowed  tliat  all  of  them,  Avitli  the 
siniile  exception  of  the  manuscript  Map  of  1749  which 
the  Plenipotentiaries  then  used  for  the  tracing  and 
description  of  the  divisional  line,  represented  the 
re[)iry  l)elo\v  and  to  the  West  of  the  Salto  Grande 
(Great  Falls)  of  the  Uruguay.  In  the  Map  of  1749, 
commonly  called  "  Map  of  the  Courts,"  the  Pepiry  or 
Pequirv  occupies  a  more  Easterly  position,  dischai-ging 
itself  at  the  right  bank  of  the  Uruguay,  just  above  the 
Salto  Grande. 

If  Article  2  of  the  Argentine  Law  of  the  26th  Sep- 
tember, 1858,  expressed  anything,  it  can  have  no  other 
intei'pi-etation  than  that  which  has  just  been  given, 
the  only  one  that  is  satisfactory  and  reconcilable  with 
the  survey  of  1759,  in  which  not  the  foi'mer  Western 
Pepiry  of  the  Jesuits,  below  the  Salto,  was  demarcated, 
but  the  more  Easterly,  above  the  same  Salto,  and  very 
neai'  it. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered,  therefore,  that  the  Bra- 
zilian Govei-nment  sliould  have  insisted  in  1859  on  the 
exchange  of  ratifications,  inasmuch  as  it  considered,  as 
also  did  the  Argentine  Government,  that  the  Treaty  of 
18Õ7  Avas  fully  approved  by  the  representatives  of  the 
Argentine  Nation  assembled  in  Congress. 

From    1859   to  1876  negotiations  upon  the  subject 

were    not   renewed.      The   first   three  years   of   that 

period  were  marked  by  great  political  com- 

Fromi859to  ,i,,,tioni,  in  the  Kiver  Plate.  War  broke 
1876. 

out  twice  between  the  Confederation  and 

the  Province  of  Buenos-Aires ;  the  Constitution  of  the 
Republic  was  amended;  the  Federalists  were  van- 
quished ;  the  Government  of  Paraná  disappeared ;  and 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  245 

the  Ar2;eutine  Xation  could  at  leiiirtb  briiio-  about  its 
unification  under  the  enlightened  leadership  of  Presi- 
dent Mitre. 

The  former  Confederation  then  assumed  the  name  of 
Ai'gentine  Republic,  and  the  City  of  Buenos-Aires 
again  became  the  capital  of  the  Republic  after  its 
political  reorganization. 

Immediately  aftei'wards  grave  disturbances  arose  in 
Uruguay,  and  a  deplorable  conflict  took  place  between 
Brazil  and  the  Government  of  Montevideo,  war  of 

which  served  as  a  pretext  for  the  interven-  Paraguay, 

tiou  of  the  Dictator  of  Paraguay,  Marshal  Solaxo 
Lopez.  The  Paraguayan  armies  invaded  the  Brazilian 
Province  of  Mat  to  Grosso  at  the  end  of  1864,  and,  the 
following  year,  the  Argentine  Province  of  Cori'ientes. 

In  consecjuence  of  that  aggression,  Brazil,  the  Argen- 
tine Republic,  and  that  of  Uruguay  signed  the  Treaty 
of  Alliance  of  May  1,  1865. 

The  war  against  the  Dictator  of  Paraguay  only  came 
to  an  end  in  187U. 

During  the  war,  the  Paraguayans  evacuated  the  posi- 
tions they  held  South  of  the  Paraná  in  the  disputed 
territory  of  Misiones,  and  from  1865  to  1869  that  terri- 
tory was  covered  and  protected  solely  by  a  division  of 
the  Brazilian  National  Guard. 

It  was  also  under  the  shadow  of  the  Brazilian  mili- 
tary occupation  that,  after  1866,  the  town  which  now 
bears  the  name  of  Posadas  and  has  the  rank  of  capital 
of  the  Argentine  Territory  of  Misiones,  began  to  be 
formed. 

After  the  overthrow  of  the  dictatorship  of  Solajíí-o 
Lopez,  the  Brazilian  Government  easily  settled  with 
the  Republic  of  Paraguay,  by  the  Treaty  of  Januarv  9, 


246  BK  A  Z/L/A  X-A  KG  EN  TINE 

1872,  tlie  bouiulíiry  (juestion  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, observing,  ;is  always,  the  rule  of  the  colonial  iiti 
2:)ossidetis,  \vhicii  was  nuicli  more  advantageous  to 
Paraguay  than  to  Brazil. 

The  Argentine  Republic,  however,  encountered  great 
difficulties  before  it  came  to  an  agreement  with  the 
new  Paraguayan  Government  u[)on  the  boundary 
question,  because  it  claimed  not  only  the  territory  of 
Misiones,  but  also  the  island  of  Atajo,  at  the  confluence 
of  the  rivers  Paraná  and  Paraguay,  and  all  the  vast 
region  named  Chaco,  which  sti'etches  to  the  West  of  the 
I'iver  Paraguay.  Only  after  strong  resistance,  and  long 
Misiones  and  '^'^*^  Complicated  negotiations,  did  the  Paia- 
the  Treaty  of  guayau  Government  agree,  by  the  Treaty 
isyóbetween    "^^   3J   February,    1876,   to    renounce    afl 

the  Argentine  ,         . 

Republic  and  those  tcrritoi'ies  ;  and  it  yielded  only  after 
Paraguay.  obtaining  a  stipulation  that  its  I'ight  to  the 
Northern  part  of  the  Chaco  should  be  submitted,  as  it 
was,  to  the  Arbitration  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Brazil  can  say  that  it  conti-ibuted  poAverfully  to  the 
fact  that  the  territory  of  Misiones,  between  the  Paraná 
and  the  Uruguay,  definitely  belonged  to  the  Argentine 
Ke[»ublic.  It  contributed  to  this  by  occupying  and 
ju-otecting  the  territory  during  the  war,  by  taking  upon 
itself  the  greater  part  of  the  sacrifices  in  blood  and 
money  that  the  Triple  Alliance  had  to  bear,  and  by 
rendering  to  its  Ally,  after  the  peace,  all  the  good 
offices  it  could  in  order  that  this  boundary  question 
should  have  a  friendly  and  satisfactory  solution. 

It  is  not  improper  to  say  in  this  discussion  that  if 
Paraguay  recognized  as  a  boundaiy  the  line  of  the 
Paraná,  lenouncing  the  teri-itory  of  Misiones,  whose 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  247 

Eastern  bonndaiy  is  the  object  of  the  present  Arbitra- 
tion, it  did  so  in  great  part,  yielding  to  the  counsels  of 
Brazil. 

As  soon  as  the  boundary  questions  between  the 
Argentine  Republic  and  Paraguay  were  adjusted,  the 

BaEOX  DE  AgUIAK  DE  AxDKADA,  Envoy  Ex-        Negotiation 

traordinary  and   Minister  Plenipotentiary  between 

of  Brazil,  on  a  Special  Mission,  endeavored  Brazil  and  the 

'  i  _  '  ^  Argentine 

to  reopen  the  negotiation  that  was  inter-  Republic 

rupted  in  1859,  and,  obeying  the  instruc-  in  1876. 

tious  he  had  received  from  the  Baron  de  Cotegipe, 
President  of  the  Council  and  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  he  showed  the  Arojentine  Government  how 
desirable  it  was  that  Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Republic 
should  define  their  boundaries  by  a  Treaty,  and  sug- 
gested as  a  draft  of  the  new  Treaty  that  of  1857. 

On  the  28th  March,  1876,  Dr.  Irigoyeíí,  Minister  for 
Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  made  the 
following  pi'oposal  : 
■  "I  think  that  Article  1st  of  the  Treaty  of  1857  can 
be  accepted  in  the  new  Treaty. 

"  Article  2  has  reference  to  the  survey  of  1759  and, 
if  am  not  mistaken,  that  survey  had  no  definite  result, 
because  it  was  necessary  to  appoint  new  Commissions 
or  Surveying  Parties. 

"  In  order  to  avoid  every  anticipated  difficulty  upon 
this  point,  I  think  that  reference  to  the  survey  of  1759 
should  be  omitted,  and  it  should  V)e  provided  that  the 
rivers  mentioned  in  Article  1  shall  be  defined  in  the 
light  of  the  works,  explorations,  and  surveys  cari'ied 
out  last  centuiy  by  order  of  the  Governments  of  Spain 
and  Portugal. 

"  I  also  believe  that  in   order  to  assure  the  definite 


248  BRA  ZILIA  N-A  KG  EN  TINE 

terininatioii  of  tlie  (.lisciission  on  Jiiiiits,  we  must  agree 
that  in  the  event  of  disagreement  between  the  Com- 
missioners, they  shall  refer  to  their  Governments ;  and, 
if  these  do  not  come  to  an  amicable  com[)romise  uj)ou 
the  controverted  points,  the  disagreement  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  arbitral  award  of  a  friendly  Govern- 
ment. 

''  These  are  the  sus^g^estions  1  can  offer  to  Your  Ex- 
cellency  in  compliance  with  your  esteemed  invitation. 
As  they  do  not  in  any  essential  point  modify  the 
Treaty  of  1857,  I  have  considered  that  the  instruc- 
tions of  Your  Excellency  Avould  be  sufficient." 

This  proposal  not  having  been  accepted,  Dk.Ikigoyen 
proposed  one  of  the  three  following  forms  for  Article 
2  of  the  new  Treaty : 

"  Ist  Form. — Both  Governments  will  appoint  Com- 
missioners who  shall  proceed  to  the  survey  of  the 
boundary  line  laid  down,  for  vvhich  oi)eration  they 
shall  bear  in  mind  all  the  works,  explorations,  and  sur- 
veys previously  carried  out  by  order  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  Spain  and  Portugal. 

"  2nd  Form. — The  Commissioners  shall  bear  in  mind 
the  Instructions  issued  by  the  Governments  of  Spain 
and  Portugal  for  the  surveys  carried  out  during  last 
century, 

''''3d Form. — The  Commissioners  shall  jn'oceed  to  the 
survey  of  the  boundaries  defined  at  the  end  of     . 
and  keeping  in  view  the  historical  pi'ecedents  of  this 
negotiation." 

The  Brazilian  Minister  opposed  those  proposals, 
which  settled  nothing,  and  insisted  that  the  boundary 
line  should  be  clearly  defined,  either  with  reference  to 
the  survey  of  1759,  or  by  determining  the  position  of 
the  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio. 


BOUNDARY   QUE  ST/O  A'.  249 

''  Sk.  Ikigoyen  informed  me,"  the  same  Minister  said,^ 
"  that  he  was  not  inclined  to  object  to  the  divisional 
line  of  the  Pepiíy-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio  surveyed 
in  the  year  1759  .  .  .  He  suggested  to  me  .  .  . 
an  addition  to  either  of  the  forms  previously  mentioned  ; 
for  example :  that  the  Commissioners  should  keep  in 
view  for  the  new  survey  especially  the  ^vork  done  by 
coTwmon  accord  between  the  former  Portuguese  and 
Spanish  surveyors,  alluding  in  the  expression — common 
accord — to  the  survey  of  17Õ9." 

The  Brazilian  Government  decided  that  its  represen- 
tative should  make  the  following  proposal : 

"  To  eliminate  Article  2  of  the  Treaty  of  December 
14,  1857,  and  to  draw  up  Article  3,  which  will  become 
the  2d,  in  the  following  terms : 

''  After  the  ratification  of  the  present  Treaty,  the  two 
High  Contracting  Parties  will  each  appoint  a  Commis- 
sioner to  proceed  by  common  accord,  within  the  shortest 
possible  term,  to  survey  the  said  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçú 
and  Santo  Antonio  as  provided  by  Article  1,  which 
is  based  on  the  principle  of  uti possidetis^ 

In  a  letter  of  21st  August,  De.  Irigoyeis'  refused  the 
proposal  in  the  following  terms: 

''  I  accept  the  elimination  of  Article  2  of  the  Treaty 
of  1857.  There  would  be  no  objection  to  the  addition 
to  Article  3,  which  will  become  the  2^,  of  the  phrase — 
'which  is,  based  on  the  principle  of  iiti  possidetis'' — if 
an  easy  application  of  it  were  found  in  treating  of  two 
nations  whose  rights  are  derived  from  others  who  pre- 
viously defined  their  boundaries  by  clear  and  precise 
international  treaties. 


'  Report  of  the  i6th  November,  1S77,  made  by  the  Brazilian  Plenipotentiary 
Baron  de  Aguiar  de  Andrada,  and  sent  on  that  date  from  Montevideo  to 
the  Minister  for  Foreign  AfTairs  of  Brazil. 


250  RRAZILIAN-ARCENTINE 

"I  ct)nsi(ler  tliat  the  uti possidetis  is  (jiiite  })ropei']y 
pleaded  between  American  States  wliicli  liave  been 
de[)eudeneies  of  one  dominion  and  have  undefined  or 
confused  boundaries.  The  territorial  divisions  in  that 
case  were  de2)endent  on  one  common  Jurisdiction  and 
were  defined  by  administrative  acts  which,  having  no 
permanent  character,  were  modified  at  the  will  of  the 
sovereign. 

"But  in  treating  of  States  whose  titles  are  dei'ived 
from  international  compacts  in  ^vhich  the  rivers  and 
points  to  serve  as  divisions  have  been  defined,  a  pro- 
vision based  on  the  tit i possidetis,  Avhich  is  only  accepted 
when,  for  the  want  of  settled  ])()undaries,  possession  is 
sanctioned  provisionally  or  definitively,  does  not  seem 
to  me  possible." 

This  doctrine  of  the  ]\[inister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of 
the  Argentine  Republic  in  1876  is  not  in  harmony 
with  that  of  Dr.  Elias  Bed(»ya,  his  predecessor,  when, 
defending  the  Treaty  of  December  14,  1857,  he  as- 
serted, at  the  sitting  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  of 
September  24,  1858,  that  "Brazil  could  not  do  other- 
wise than  uphold  that  which  it  had  upheld  and  pos- 
sessed since  1801.'' 

Dr.  Ikigoyen  added  in  aletter  of  21st  August,  1876  : 

"Far  from  wishing  to  re-open  the  old  controversies 
which  divided  the  Governments  of  Si)ain  and  Portugal, 
we  could  conciliate  common  interests  and  principles  by 
accepting  the  spirit  of  Articles  16  and  19  of  the  Treaty 
of  1777,  giving  them  this  f<u"m. 

"The  Commissioners  a})p<)inte(l  will  bear  in  mind 
that  the  sui'vey  of  the  divisional  line  must  aim,  as 
agreed  by  the  Governments  of  Spain  and  Portugal  on 
the  1st  October,  1777,  to  ])reserve  that  which  each  one 
possessed  under  the  said  Treaty. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION,  2$  I 

"lu  the  eveut  of  auy  divergence  occurring  between 
the  Commissioners  as  to  the  cariying  out  of  the  present 
Treaty,  they  will  endeavor  to  remove  it  [)i'ovisiona]ly 
without  proceeding  to  violent  measures  to  make  any 
change,  and  they  shall  report  it  to  their  respective 
Governments  in  order  that  these  may  definitely  decide 
the  points  which  gave  rise  to  the  disagreement." 

The  Argentine  counter-proposals  meant  a  system  of 
delay  which  was  dangerous,  inasmuch  as  its  purpose  was 
to  entrust  to  Commissioners  the  localization    _, 

The  negotia- 

of  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Santo  An-  tion  of  1876 
tonio,  a  subject  it  was  expedient  should  be^**^°"^  result, 
treated  and  decided  by  the  direct  action  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments. It  was  i^robable  that  the  discretion  left  to 
the  Joint  Commission  would  produce  dissensions  and, 
perhaps,  a  revival  of  the  question  raised  in  1789  by  the 
Spanish  Commissioners,  in  fla2;rant  violation  of  their 
Instructions;  but  the  Arcj-eutine  Government  did  not 
contest  the  point  that  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  the  Santo 
Antonio  were  to  form  the  boundary,  nor  did  it  }et 
assei't  its  subsequent  pi'etension  to  the  right  bank  of 
the  Chapecó,  or  Pequiií-Guazú,  and  to  the  left  bank 
of  the  river  Chopim,  then  supposed  to  be  the  San 
Antonio  Giiazii  of  Oyárvide. 

The  Brazilian  Government  was  unable  to  accept  the 
counter-pi'oposals  of  1876,  and  thus  put  au  end  to  the 
Mission  entrusted  to  Bakox  de  Aguiar  de  A^'drada. 

In  1881,  the  pi'etension  of  the  Argentine  The  Argentine 
Government  was,  for  the  first  time,  clearly       pretension 

''    manifested  in 

defined.  1881, 

A  Decree  of  the  Imperial  Government,  Xo.  2052,  of 
November  16,  1859,  liad  ordered  two  military  colo- 
nies to  be  erected  in  the  Province  of  Paraná,  near  the 
rivers  Chapecó  and  Chopim.     In  18^1,  the  Minister  of 


■:>- 


HÁ' A  ZILIA  N-A  RGEN  TINE 


AVar  took  nieasui'es  to  give  effect  to  tins  scheme. 
Having  been  informed  of  this  by  the  newspapers,  and 
believing  that  the  two  colonies  were  about  to  be  estab- 
lislied  on  the  West  of  those  I'ivers,  the  Argentine 
Minister  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  Dr.  Luis  Dominguez,  in 
March  of  that  year,  made  some  vei'bal  observations 
to  the  Minister  for  Foreio-n  Affairs  of  Brazil,  Councillor 
Pereira  de  Souza. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  relieve  the  mind  of  the  Aro-en- 
tine  Minister,  nor  was  it  necessary  to  give  orders  for 
the  position  of  the  colonies  to  be  changed,  inasmuch 
as  it  was  already  decided  that  they  were  to  be  estab- 
lished on  the  Eastern  side  of  the  Chapecó  and  Chopim. 

This  incident  of  1881  did  not  give  rise  at  the  time 
to  any  Protocol  or  exchange  of  Notes.  It  had  the 
effect  of  I'evealing,  however,  that  the  Argentine  Re- 
public no  longer  limited  itself,  as  in  1876,  to  express- 
ing doubts  as  to  the  exact  position  of  the  rivers, 
Pepiry-Gnaçú  and  Santo  Antonio.  For  the  fii'st  time 
one  of  its  official  representatives,  addressing  the 
Brazilian  Government,  considered  the  territory  to  the 
East  of  those  rivers  contestable,  and  assigned  as  the 
Eastern  boundary  of  the  Ai-gentiue  pretension  the 
rivei'S  Chapecó  and  Chopim.  The  Argentine  Republic 
thus  revived  the  question  raised  in  1789  by  the  Spanish 
Commissionei's  of  the  second  demarcation. 

The  Brazilian  Government  from  that  time  became 
fully  aware  of  the  pretension,  but  it  took  no  step,  nor 
did  it  make  any  declaration  that  could  invalidate  the 
rights  of  the  Brazilian  nation. 

The  militaiy  colonies  were  established  to  the  East 
of  the  Chapecó  and  Chopim  because  that  Easterly  posi- 
tion had  seemed  more  suitable  to  the  Ministry  of  AVar. 
They  would  thus  serve  to  protect  the  principal  line  of 


BOUND  AR  Y  Q  UESTION.  2  5  3 

commuuicatioii  that  had  been  open  since  1845  between 
Rio  Grande  do  Sul,  Paraná,  and  S.  Paulo. 

If  the  Bi-azilian  Government  had  found  it  preferable 
to  establish  them  in  1881,  or  afterwards,  to  the  West 
of  the  two  rivers,  it  would  have  done  so  in  the  exercise 
of  an  indisputable  right.  The  Argentine  Republic 
has  shown  that  it  is  permissible  to  occupy  disputed 
territories  militarily,  seeing  that,  for  some  years,  it 
maintained  a  body  of  troops  at  Villa  Occidental, 
known  as  Villa  Hayes,  after  it  was  restored  to  the 
dominion  of  the  Republic  of  Paraguay,  as  was  the 
Northern  Chaco,  by  the  award  of  President  Hayes,  of 
the  United  States  of  America. 

Brazil  did  not  need  to  found   military  colonies  to 
the  West  of  the  Chapecò  and  Chopim  in 
order  to  prove  that  it  maintained  then,  as     tj^J^òccupa- 
it  does  now,  under  its  jurisdiction  all  the       tion  of  the 
territory  to  the  East  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  territory 

•.,_,,  ^     rry  o^  Palmas. 

and  Santo  Antonio,  ihere  were  the  iown 
and  Parish  of  Palmas,  the  Borough  and  Parish  of  Boa- 
Vista,  and  other  less  important  nucleuses  of  popula- 
tion, besides  numerous  farms.  The  inhabitants  were, 
and  are,  almost  wholly  Brazilians.  Since  1836  and 
1838,  they  have  been  in  permanent  occupation  of 
Campo  de  Palmas. 

The  Aro-entine  Government  could  not  be  ignorant 
of  the  settlement  of  the  Brazilians  in  those  regions, 
because  it  had  a  Legation  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  and  official 
documents  made  the  fact  public  as  early  as  1841.  If 
it  l)elieved  it  had  a  right  to  the  territory  to  the  East 
of  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio  it  should  have 
protested  against  its  administrative  occupation  as  it 
protested  against  that  of  the  Malouiues  or  Falkland 
Islands  by  England. 


254  ^^-f  ZIIJAX-A  A'CEN  TJXE 

III  1841  the  President  of  the  Pi-oviuce  of  S.  Paulo, 
liAi'iiAEL  Tobias  de  Aguiar,  announced  in  his  licport  to 
the  Provincial  Leiiislative  Assembly  the  occupation  of 
CaiiH)o  de  Palmas  l)y  two  expeditions  from  Curityba, 
then  the  chief  town  of  a  Comarca  (Judicial  Divisiou) 
forming  })art  of  tliat  Brazilian  Province. 

Tlie  expeditions  referi'ed  to  l)y  the  Pi'esident  of  S. 
Paulo,  and  which  were  lieaded  by  Major  Joaqubi  Pinto 
Bandeira,  of  the  National  Guard,  and  by  Manoel  de 
Almeida  Leiria,  in  1888,  had  ali'eady  been  preceded 
by  three  others,  namely :  that  which  started  fi'om  Pal- 
meiras in  1836,  uuder  the  leadei-ship  of  Father  Ponciano 
José  de  Araújo,  Rector  of  that  Pai-ish,  and  of  José 
JoAQULM  de  Almeida,  afterwards  a  Colonel  in  the 
National  Guard ;  and  tAVO  which  came  out  of  Guara- 
puava, having  as  leaders  José  Ferreira  dos  Santos 
and  Pedro  de  Siqueira  Cortes. 

In  1840  a  company  of  the  militaiy  police  of  S.  Paulo 
("Municipaes  Permanentes")  was  detached  to  Campo 
de  Palmas  uuder  Captain  IIermogenes  Carneiro  Lobo. 
This  company  was  ci-eated  by  an  Act  of  March  16, 1837, 
of  the  Provincial  Legislative  Assembly  of  S.  Paulo  for 
the  special  purpose  of  occupying  Campo  de  Palmas.^ 
And  the  persons  composing  the  diifei'ent  expeditions 
being  in  hot  dispute  concerning  the  division  of  the  land, 

'  In  the  Revista  do  Instituto  Histórico  e  Geogi-aphica  do  B ra zi t  (Rexiew  of  the 
Historical  and  Geographical  Institute  of  Brazil),  Vol.  XIV.,  year  1851,  p.  425 
to  438,  is  to  be  found  an  Account,  the  translation  of  whose  title  is  :  "  An  ac- 
count of  the  discovery  of  Campo  de  Palmas  in  the  Comarca  of  Coritiba,  Pro- 
vince of  S.  Paulo,  of  its  colonization,  and  of  some  events  which  occurred  there 
to  the  present  month  of  December,  1850,  written  and  presented  to  the  Histori- 
cal Institute  by  Senhor  Joaqui.m  Josk  Pinto  Bandeir.\." 

At  page  430  the  following  occurs  :  "  .  .  .  but  as  the  Provincial  Assem- 
bly, by  a  Law  of  i6th  March,  1837,  had  created  a  company  of  Military 
Police  (Municipaes  Permanentes),  in  order  that  it  might  make  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  the  discover^'  of  these  plains,  the  Government  ordered  it  to  be 
sent  there  to  protect  the  farmers." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  255 

lawyer  Jolo  ua  Silva  Carrào,  afterwards  Minister  of 
State  and  Senator  of  the  Empire,  and  Major  Pixto  Ba^í"- 
DEIRA  were  chosen  as  arbitrators  to  settle  the  difficulty. 
On  the  4th  April,  1840,  they  started  from  Curityba  and 
ariived  at  Campo  de  Palmas  on  the  28th  May,  remaining 
there  until  Auirust.  In  the  same  year  Commander  Car- 
NEiRoLoBO  founded  onthebanks  of  the  stream  Cachoeira 
the  village  called  from  that  time  Capella  de  Palmas. 

The  occupation  of  Cam[)0  Erê  in  1840,  while  the  ar- 
bitrators Carrão  and  Pixto  Bandeira  were  making  the 
division  of  the  lands,  is  related  in  the  following  pas- 
sage of  the  Account  \vi-itten  by  the  latter  in  1850, 
and  printed  the  following  year  in  the  Review  of  the 
Historical  and  Geographical  Institute  of  Brazil : 

"  For  two  months  and  a  half  which  were  spent  in  the 
divisionof  the  land,  several  explorations  were  made  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  from  the  information  of  the  Indians 
other  plains  and  tracts  of  coarse  grass,  to  which  they  gave 
the  name  of  Campo  Erê,  were  discovered.     .     .     ."  ^ 

This  position,  near  the  headwaters  of  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçíi  and  Santo  Antonio,  is  the  most  advanced  that 
the  Brazilians  occupy  in  the  territory  now  disputed.  In 
1840,  thirty-seven  farms  were  established  in  Campo  de 
Palmas  which,  in  1850,  already  had  nearly  36,000  head 
of  cattle.^  In  the  same  year,  1850,  Campo  Erê  had  five 
f  arms.^  The  lands  owned  by  the  farmei's  of  this  place  were 
reo-istered  by  the  Collector  of  Palmas  in  18õõ  and  1856.^ 

'  Pinto  Bandeira's  cited  Account,  p.  430. 

^  lindem,  p.  420  :  "As  the  number  of  associates,  having  reached  sixty,  had  be- 
come excessive  for  the  capacity  of  the  plains,  a  few  sold  their  shares,  and  only  thirty- 
seven  farms  were  established  which  now  contain  about  36,000  head  of  cattle." 

"^  Ibidtm,  p.  431  : — "  .  .  .  Among  others  we  will  mention  Campo  Erê 
which  already  contains  five  farms. 

■•  Information  dated  August  3,  1891,  of  the  Assistant  Judge  "de  Direito"  of 
Palmas,  in  a  telegram  addressed  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Brazil. 

In  the  Mevioria  del  Ministério  de  Rel.  Este  de  la  Hepuòlica  Argentina  (Report 


256  BA' A  Z/L  IA  X-  A  RGEN  TINE 

Ou  June  2."),  18-Al,  January  8,  and  August  27, 
1844,  General  Antero  in-:  Brito,  Piesident  of  Santa 
Catlianna.  anotliei'  I>raziliaii  Province,  protested 
agaiust  the  jurisdiction  of  the  authorities  of  S.  Paulo, 
in  Campo  de  Palmas,  maintaining  that  all  the  territory 
tt)  tlu*  East  of  the  Pe[)iiT-(Tuaçíi  and  of  the  Santo 
Antonio  belonged  to  the  Pi'ovince  of  Santa  Catharina, 

The  protest  of  Santa  Catharina  became  public  and 
gave  rise  to  discussions.  The  Rejiort  of  1841  of  the 
President  of  S.  Paulo  was  also  a  published   document, 

of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic)  presented  to 
Congress  in  1892,  it  may  be  read  at  page  45  that  in  1881  the  Brazilian  Govern- 
ment "  returned  with  its  troops  to  the  frontier  and,  after  encouraging  the  colo- 
nies of  Chopim,  Chapecó,  and  Palmas,  which  were  advancing  upon  the  contested 
region,  entered  resolutely  to  the  heart  of  the  territory,  upon  the  heights  which 
divide  the  basins  of  the  Paraná  and  of  the  Iguaçu,  throwing  forward  its  out- 
posts as  far  as  Santa  Ana  and  Campo  Erê.  Such  audacity  shows  an  error  of 
the  diplomacy  of  Rio  de  Janeiro.  .  .  ."  And  at  page  46:  "Moreover, 
those  recent  usurpations  would  not  in  any  way  benefit  the  claim  of  Brazil.   .   .  " 

There  are  several  mistakes  in  the  two  passages  quoted  : 

1st.  The  Brazilian  Government  did  not  send  troops  to  the  territory  which 
the  Argentine  Republic  has  claimed  since  1881,  and  it  did  not  send  them  be- 
cause it  had  no  need  to  do  so  in  order  to  prove  that  it  is  and  always  was  in 
possession  of  the  territory. 

2d.  The  colony  of  the  Chapecó  was  established  in  Xanxere,  a  place  outside 
the  region  claimed  by  the  Argentine  Republic. 

3d.  The  colony  of  the  Chopim  was  established  in  a  territory  which  has  only 
been  contested  since  it  was  found,  in  18S8,  that  the  river  Jangada  is  the  San 
Antonio  Guazú  of  Oy.írvide,  the  decision  arrived  at  by  the  Brazilian  Govern- 
ment at  that  date  having  been  thought  worthy  of  praise  of  the  present  Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  Si  Valentin  Virasoro,  in  an 
interesting  monograph  published  in  1892. 

4th.  The  village,  afterwards  town  of  I'almas,  was  inaugurated  in  1840,  and 
appears  under  its  name  within  the  boundaries  of  Brazil  in  Map  VI.,  engraved  in 
1865,  in  the  Atlas  of  MoussY,  published  by  order  of  the  Argentine  Government. 

5th.  Campo  Erê,  which  is  a  more  advanced  position  than  S.  Ana,  was  oc- 
cupied in  1840  and,  as  has  been  said  before,  already  had  in  1850  five  farms 
belonging  to  Brazilians.  The  lands  owned  by  them  were  registered  in  the 
collectorship  of  Palmas  in  1855  and  1856.  In  1879  and  1880,  the  Judge  "  de 
Orphãos  e  Ausentes  "  ("  of  Orphans  and  Absents  ")  of  the  Termo  (Judicial  Dis- 
trict) of  Palmas  proceeded  to  an  inventory  of  the  property  left  by  Vicente 
Antonio  dk  Lara,  farmer  of  Campo  Erê,  a  place  which  Dr.  Zeballos  sup- 
poses to  have  been  occupied  only  since  1881. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  257 

printed  aud  distributed,  as  are  all  docuinents  of  that 
nature. 

In  1842,  Cai>taiu  Pedro  de  Siqueira  Cortes,  the 
new  Commander  of  the  detachment  of  Military  Police, 
began  to  open  a  road  to  the  plains  of  Curityba,  and 
the  farmers  another  to  Palmeira,  and,  in  1846,  a  third 
and  shorter  one,  passing  through  Porto  da  Uuiáo  on 
the  Iguaçu.  The  Provincial  Legislative  Assembly  of 
S.  Paulo  had  at  different  times  voted  funds  for  the 
opening  of  this  last  road.^  In  1845,  by  order  of  the 
President  of  S.  Paulo,  General  Manoel  da  Foxseca 
LniA,  afterwards  Barox  de  Suruhy,  the  opening  of 
communications  with  Rio  Grande  do  Sul  was  begun  by 
the  Passo  (ford)  of  Goyo  En,  and  by  Nonohay.  Gen- 
eral Caxias,  then  President  of  Pio  Grande  do  Sul 
(another  Brazilian  Province)  encouraged  and  assisted 
these  works. 

Law  No.  14,  of  21st  March,  1849,  of  the  Provincial 
Legislative  Assembly  of  S.  Paulo,  raising  the  old 
Parish  of  Guarapuava  to  a  Town  (Villa),  provided 
that  Palmas  should  form  part  of  the  new  Township, 
(Município).^ 

The  Law  of  29th  August,  1853,  of  the  General 
Legislative  Assembly  of  the  Empire,  detached  from 
the  Province  of  S.  Paulo  the  Comarca  (Judicial  divi- 
sion) of  Curityba,  raising  it  to  a  Province  with  the 
name  of  Paraná.  From  that  time.  Palmas  aud  its 
territory  remained  undei"  the  dependence  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Government  of  Paraná,  and  the  Province  of 
Santa  Catharina  claimed  from  Paraná  the  territory  to 

'  Review  of  the  His.  Instiiiite  of  Brazil,  Vol.  XIV.  (1851),  pp.  433  and  434. 

'^  "  Art.  1st. — The  Parish  of  Bethlem,  situated  in  the  Comarca  (Judicial 
division)  of  Curityba,  is  raised  to  the  category  of  a  Town  (Villa)  under  the 
name  of  Guarapuava. 

"Art.  2nd.  The  former  boundaries  including  the  Capella  de  Palmas  shall 
continue." 


258  BKAZILIAX-ARGENTINE 

tlie  South  of  the  lirUcavii  and  to  the  Ea^^t  of  tlie  Santo 
Antonio  and  tlie  Pepiry-Guavu,  which  it  formerly 
claimed  fiom  S.  Paulo. 

This  houudary  (juestion  was  after  1846  the  subject 
of  discussions  in  the  press,  in  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  and  in  the  Senate  of  Brazil.  In  184(3,  a 
Committee  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  presented  a 
Report  on  the  claim  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Santa  Catharina  against  the  occupation  of  the  ten-itory 
in  (juestion  by  authorities  and  expeditions  from  S. 
Paulo.  In  1SÕ4:  the  subject  w^as  again  discussed  in  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  and,  two  years  later,  in  the  Senate. 

By  a  Law  of  February  28,  1850,  No.  22,  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly  of  Paraná,  the  district  of  the 
settlement  of  Palmas  came  to  form  a  Parish.  Thence- 
forward the  inhabitants  of  that  territory,  who,  in  the 
elections  of  the  iii'st  degree  for  Senators  and  Deputies 
to  the  Bi'azilian  Parliament,  for  Members  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Legislative  Assembly,  and  in  the  Municipal 
elections,  and  those  for  Justices  of  the  Peace,  were  put 
to  the  inconvenience  of  going  to  vote  at  Guarapuava, 
had  as  a  point  of  meeting  for  these  acts  the  parochial 
church  of  the  Senhor  Bom  Jesus  de  Palmas. 

Another  Law  of  the  Provincial  Legislative  Assem- 
bly  of  Paraná,  dated  October  9,  1878,  raised  Palmas 
to  the  i)Ositiou  of  a  Town  (Villa),  forming  of  that  ter- 
ritory a  Townshi[)  and  a  Termo  (Judicial  distiict) 
wdiose  limits  to  the  West  continued  to  be  those  of  the 
Parish,  that  is  to  say,  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçíi  and 
Santo  Antonio.  Later,  by  other  Laws  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Assembly  of  Paraná,  the  Termo  of  Palmas  was 
raised  to  a  Comarca  (Judicial  division)^  and  in  this  dis- 

'  Termo,  a  judicial  district  under  a  Judge  called  "  Municipal."  Cotnm-ca,  a 
Judicial  division  under  a  Judge  "  de  Direito"  and  generally  comprising  two  or 
more  Termos. 


BOUNDARY    QUESTION.  259 

ti'ict  a  second  Parish  was  created  whose  seat  was  the 
village  of  Boa  Vista. 

All  those  public  acts  exercised  during  forty  years, 
counted  from  the  date  of  the  Report  of  the  President  of 
8.  Paulo  (1841)  until  the  first  of  the  notice  Argentine 
claim  (1881),  passed  without  the  least  protest  or  chal- 
lenge from  the  Government  of  that  Republic  or  from 
its  Leo-ation  in  Brazil. 

From  1810,  the  date  of  the  independence  of  the 
Provinces  of  the  River  Plate,  until  1881,  the  long 
period  of  70  years  elapsed,  to  which,  strictly,  should 
be  added  the  19  years  from  1791  to  1810,  in  which 
Spain  took  no  notice  of  the  recommendation  of  its 
Commissioners  for  the  alteration  of  the  divisional  line 
defined  in  the  Treaty  of  1777. 

During  those  70  years,  or  89  in  the  second  case,  first 
the  Portuguese  maps,  then  the  Brazilian  maps,  aud, 
generally,  all  the  foreign  maps,  published  seventy  years 
in  the  United  States  of  America' and  in  without  a 
Euro[)e,^  gave  as    the   boundary    between  protest. 

Brazil  and  the  Provinces  of  the  River  Plate,  since  then 
Argentine  Confederation  and  Argentine  Republic,  the 

'  For  example,  the  one  which  has  this  title  : 

"  Map  of  the  Basin  of  La  Plata,  based  upon  the  results  of  the  expedition 
under  the  command  of  Tuo^  G.  PAGE,  U.  S.  Nav}\  in  the  years  iSjj,  54,  JJ, 
and  ^6,  and  of  the  adjacent  countries,  compiled  from  the  best  authorities."  This 
map  occurs  in  the  following  work  :  "  Zi?  Plata,  the  Argentine  Confederation, 
and  Paraguay,  being  a  narrative  of  the  exploration  of  the  tributaries  of  the 
Piver  La  Plata  and  adjacent  countries  during  the  years  i8jj,  j4,  Jj,  and  jo, 
under  the  orders  of  the  United  States  Government,  by  Thomas  G.  Page,  U.  S.  N., 
Commander  of  the  Expedition."     New  York,  1859. 

^  The  maps  published  under  the  direction  or  according  to  the  instructions  of 
Sir  Woodbine  Parish,  for  many  years  Charge  d'Affaires  and  Consul-General 
of  Great  Britain  at  Buenos-Aires  and  author  of  an  historical  and  geographical 
work  upon  the  Provinces  of  the  River  Plate,  a  work  which  was  translated  into 
Spanish  at  Buenos-Aires  and  published  (1853)  a  few  years  after  the  English 
edition. 


26o  BRA/JLIAX-ARGEX  TINE  _ 

Pepiíy-ÍTiiavii  niul  tlie  >aiito  .Viitoiíio,  tliat  is  to  say,  the 
river  that  discharices  itself  on  the  rii^ht  bank  of  the  Urn- 
giiay,  a  little  above  the  Salto  Grande  (Great  Falls)  and 
the  ti'ibutary  of  the  Iguaçu  wliieli  il(>\vs  in  the  opposite 
direction  ahnost  on  the  same  niei'idian  as  the  Pepiiy- 
Guavu. 

Tlie  Argentine  Government  not  only  i-emained  silent 
for  70  years  without  ever  challenging  the  official  Bra- 
zilian maps,  but  even  authorized  or  assisted 
M?ps"  *"^  ^'^  ^^^^  publication  of  others  which  re[)re- 
sented  the  divisional  line  along  those  two 
rivers. 

The  Brazilian  Memorandum  of  the  26th  November, 
1857,  and  the  Note  of  the  1st  August,  1859,  of  the 
Bi'azilian  Legation  in  the  City  of  Pai'ana,  quoted  the 
Mapa  de  la  llepuhlica  Argentina  by  the  engineers 
Allax  and  Campbell,  dated  18ÕÕ,  "and  printed  by 
order  of  the  Argentine  Government."  Many  others 
can  be  cited  and,  among  them,  that  of  the  Confede- 
racion  Argentina^  of  1863  ^ ;  of  the  Provinda  de  Cor- 
rientes,  of  1865,  constructed  from  documents  in  the 
Typographical  Department  of  Buenos-Aires  ^ ;  those  of 
the  well-known  Atlas  de  la  Confederation  Argentine 
by  V.  Martin  de  Moussy,  an  indisputably  official 
publication,  and  the  Map  of  1875,  by  the  engineers 
A.  DE   Seelstraxg   and    A.  Tourmente,    constructed 

'  Translation  of  the  title:  "^  New  Map  of  the  Provinces  forming  the  Ar- 
gentine Confederation  of  the  Oriental  Republic  of  the  Uruguay,  and  of  those 
of  Paraguay  and  Chile  drawn  and  corrected  from  the  most  authentic  and  modern 
explorations  made  in  these  later  years.     i86j."     (No.  23  A  in  the  Appendix.) 

-Translation  of  the  title:  "  Geographical  Map  of  the  Provinces  of  Corri- 
entes  and  part  of  the  Republic  of  the  Uruguay  constructed  from  the  data  in  the 
archives  of  the  Typos^raphical  Department  of  Buenos-Aires,  and  with  relation 
to  all  the  maps  published  to  this  day.  Dedicated  by  the  authors  to  His  Excellency 
the  President  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  Brigadier  General  D.  Bartolomé 
Mitre.     iSój."     (No.  24  A  in  Vol.  VL) 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  201 

specially  at  Buenos-Aires  by  order  of  the  Argentine 
Central  Commission  for  tbe  Philadelphia  Exhibition  in 
1876/  and  a[)peuded  to  a  book  which  was  profusely 
distributed  at  the  time,  in  the  United  States  and  in 
Europe,  by  the  agents  of  the  Argentine  Government. 
The  ^vork,  written  by  D.  Kicaedo  Napp,  a  federal 
official,'  and  by  other  x\rgentines  in  the  civil  or  military 
service  of  the  Republic,  was  translated  into  several 
languages,  and  has  the  following  title  in  the  English 
edition  :  "  Tlie  Argentine  Repuhlic,  ivritten  in  (Ter- 
man  by  Richard  Napp,  etc:,  for  the  Central  Argentine 
Commission  on  the  Centenary  Exlnhition  at  PhiJadel- 
])liia.     Buenos- Aires.     187  6  y 

In  a  Note  of  the  20th  November,  1889,  addressed 
by  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine 
Republic  to  his  colleague  the  Minister  of  Public  In- 
struction, the  following  may  be  read  : 

"  The  recognized  want  of  officially  authorized  maps 
imposes  on  the  various  Departments  of  the  administra- 
tion the  patriotic  duty  of  selecting  with  the  greatest 
care  the  maps  that  are  to  be  used  in  training  the  minds 
of  the  Argentine  youth  in  the  knowledge  of  the  terri- 
torial rights  of  the  Republic. 

"  Criticism  finds  much  to  say  upon  the  Atlases  and 
maps  which  serve  as  text-books  in  the  establishments 
I  have  mentioned,  and  with  the  object  of  preventing 
the  evils  with  which  Your  Excellency  is  acquainted, 
and  of  avoiding  by  the  repetition  of  acts  of  this  nature 
the  encouragement    of   foreign  pretensions,  I  request 

1  Translation  of  the  title:  ''Map  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  constructed  by 
A.  Seelstrang  and  A.  TOURMENTE,  Engineers,  by  order  of  the  Central  Argen- 
tine  Committee  for  the  Philadelphia  Exhibition.     Buenos-Aires,  1875." 

«  "A  national  official,  DoN  Ricardo  Napp  .  .  .  ,"  says  the  Report  of 
1892  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  p.  59. 


202  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

Your  Excellency  to  order  a  drict  revision  of  tlie  text- 
hool'S  of  XationaJ  Geography,  to  which  I  have  referi-ed, 
so  that  new  editions  may  be  in  accordance  with  the 
rights  and  propriety  I  have  had  the  honor  to  indi- 
cate. 

''The  Aigentine  Republic  has  no  official  maps,  and 
if  some  claim  that  character,  this  Ministry  does  not 
recognize  them  in  international  questions,  seeing  that  it 
has  never  autliorized  them.  On  the  otlier  hand,  tlie 
fact  that  the  editions  are  undertaken  by  public  officials, 
subventioned  by  the  State  or  bought  by  the  Education 
Departments,  does  not  make  the  Argentine  Govern- 
ment responsible  for  their  contents.     .     .     ."  ^ 

This  admonition  from  the  Arcrentine  Foreii^n  Office 
was  made  because  the  Bi'azilian  Govei'ument,  in  the 
Memorandum  of  1882,  and  in  the  Counter-Memo- 
randum of  1884,  had  quoted  several  maps  as  proving 
that  the  Argentine  Government,  in  official  publica- 
tions, recognized  until  1881  the  frontier  occupied  and 
defended  by  Brazil. 

In  consequence  of  the  representation  of  the  20tli 
November,  1889,  the  Argentine  Government  promul- 
gated a  Decree  denying  the  authority  on  questions  of 
limits  of  all  maps  that  were  not  a[)proved  by  its  De- 
partment of  Foreign  Affairs. 

But  the  representation  and  the  Decree  cannot  have 
a  retroactive  effect ;  and,  instead  of  removing,  they 
confii-med  the  fact  that  from  1810  to  1881  the  maps 
published  by  order  of  the  Argentine  Govei'nment,  scat- 
tered broadcast  with  its  books  of  propaganda  through- 
out Europe  and  America,  and  even  School  Books  and 


'  Translated  from  the  Report  of  D?  Zeballos,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs 
of  the  Argentine  Republic,  presented  to  Congress,  1892,  §  VIII.,  p.  60. 


BOUiYDARY  QUESTION.  263 

School-maps,  as  the  Xote  of  the  20tli  Xovembei-,  1889, 
acknowleelges,  preseuted  as  Vjoiindaries  of  the  Argentine 
RepuVjlic  the  rivers  Pepiry-Guaçvi  and  Santo  Antonio, 
and  not  the  Chapecó  (Pequirí-Giiazú)  and  Jangada 
(San  Antonio  Giiazú). 

The  Report  of  1892  of  the  Argentine  Foreign  Office, 
comprehending  the  force  of  this  argument,  seeks  to 
destroy  it  but  without  attaining  that  object. 

Regarding  the  Maji  distributed  on  the  occasion  of 
the  Centennial  Exhibition  at  Philadelphia,  appended 
to  the  work  of  Napp,  tlie  Heport  says  that,  in  the  text, 
the  boundary  is  designated  by  the  "  Pepiry-Guazu  and 
the  San  Antonio  Guazii,"  and  gives  to  understand  that 
the  Argentines  only  ap[)ly  the  adjective  guarani  gvazú 
to  the  rivers  which  the  Republic  claims  as  a  boundary/ 

This  explanation  has  no  foundation  whatever,  since 
the  Pepiry-Guazii  of  the  Map  in  question  is  the  river 
Avhose  month  is  immediately  above  the  Salto  Grande 
(Great  Falls)  of  the  Uruguay,  and  not  the  Pequiri- 
Guazd  (Chapecó  of  the  Brazilians)  which  empties  itself 
very  much  farther  to  the  East  more  than  149  kilo- 
metres (nearly  81  miles)  distant  from  the  Salto  Grande 
counting  the  windings  of  the  Uruguay.  The  question 
of  the  Guarany  adjectives  guaçà  (guazíi)  and  mirim, 
(mini)  was  already  discussed  in  this  Statement  (pages 
109  and  110). 

The  explications  given  in  the  Report  of  1892  about 
the  Atlas  of  Martix  de  Moussy  are  not  more  to  the 
point  than  the  one  which  has  just  been  examined. 

The  Report  asserts  that  Map  V  of  that  collection 
gives  the  boundary  according  to  the  present  Argentine 
pretension    because   the    Pepiiy-Guazii    and    the   San 

'  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  what  Argentine  writers  understand  by 
great  (guazú)  rivers  in  this  secular  controversy  "  {Report,  1892). 


264  BA' A  ZIIJAX-A  KGEXTIXE 

Antouio  Giiazii  are  to  tlie  East  of  tlie  two  rivers  tliere 
designated  as  Pepiry-Mini  and  San  Antonio  Mini,  ])iit 
it  does  not  notice  that,  according  to  the  Diary  of  the 
Brazilian-Argentine  Joint  Commission,  there  is  in  fact 
to  the  West  of  tlie  true  Pepiry-Giia(,'ú  a  river,  in  the 
Argentine  territory,  known  by  the  name  of  Pepiry- 
Mini  ' ;  it  does  not  notice  either  that,  much  to  the  East 
of  the  two  rivers  Pepiry-Guazú  and  San  Antouio 
Guazii  b}'  which,  in  this  map,  the  divisional  line  passes, 
there  is  the  river  Magi,  and  that  in  Map  VII  of  the 
Atlas  it  is  seen  that  the  same  river,  far  outside  the 
Argentine  boundaries,  has  the  names  of  ''  Kiver  Magi 
or  C'hopi "  aud  passes  to  the  North  of  the  Brazilian 
town  of  Palmas,  being,  therefore,  the  rivei"  Chopim, 
claimed  as  a  boundary  by  the  x\rgentine  liepublic  from 
1881  to  1888. 

The  Report  of  1892  alleges  that  Map  VII  was  drawn 
after  the  death  of  the  author  of  the  Atlm^  though  the 
Map  bears  the  date  of  1865,  and,  in  1867  Maiítix  de 
MoussY  was  a  Commissioner  of  the  Argentine  Republic 
and  a  member  of  the  Jury  at  the  Universal  Exhibition 
of  Pai-is.  It  states  besides  that  the  boundary  is  tiaced 
on  Map  VI  along  the  rivers  which  the  Argentine  Re- 
public now  claims,  and,  as  a  matter  t)f  fact,  what  is  seen 
on  that  Map  is  that  the  mouth  of  the  "  Pepiry-Guazú  " 
is  9  kilometres  (5  miles)  above  the  Salto  Grande 
(Great  Falls)  of  the  Uruguay,  while  the  river  the 
Argentine  Republic  wishes  to  have  for  its  boundary 
(the    Pequirí-Guazú,    or    Chapeco)    is,    as    has    been 

'  The  Argentine  Z>/í3!rj  of  the  Joint  Commission  appointed  under  the  Treaty 
of  the  28th  September,  1885,  says  : 

"  On  the  13th  day  (July,  1887)  the  survey  of  the  Uruguay  was  begun,  the 
first  station  being  situated  on  the  right  bank  of  the  mouth  of  the  river  -lohich  is 
known  lo  the  inhabitants  of  the  place  as  the  Pepiry-Mini,  and  to  'which  others 
give  the  name  of  Jaboti,  which  it  has  in  the  region  of  the  village  of  San  I'edro." 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  265 

said  before,  149.5  kilometres  (80.7  miles)  above  the 
Great  Falls,  lu  this  same  Map  No.  VI  may  be  seen, 
far  to  the  East  of  the  divisional  line,  the  river  Magi, 
the  name  Moussy  gave  to  the  Chopim. 

In  other  maps  of  this  official  Alias  (XVIII  and 
XXVIII)  the  boundary  is  seen  to  follow  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçú,  the  first  river  above  the  Great  Falls  of  the 
Uruguay,  as  the  Brazilians  maintain,  and  not  along  the 
river  proposed  by  the  Sj)auish  Commissioners  as  a 
boundary  in  1789. 

Brazil  can,  therefoi-e,  affirm  that  its  right  to  the 
boundary  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçíi  and  Santo  Antonio  was 
reco2:nized  for  more  than  seventy  years  by  the  Ai"2:en- 
tine  Republic. 

In  1881,  the  Law  of  the  22d  December,  passed  by 
the  Argentine  Congress,  established  the  Gobernacion 
de  Misiones  (Governorship  of  Misiones)  forming  it  out 
of  the  territory  included  between  the  rivers  Uruguay 
and  Paraná. 

By  a  Decree  of  the  16th  March,  1882,  the  Ai-gentine 
Government    divided    that    territory    into 

Creation  of 

five  Departments,  designating  their  boun-    the  Goberna- 
daries.     The    Departments    received    the       cion  of  Mi- 
names  of  San  Martin  (Corpus),  Piray,  San 
Javier  (or  S.  Xavier),  Monteagudo,  and  Iguazii.    Later 
a  sixth,  that  of  Posadas,  was  created. 

Only  five  of  those  Departments  boi-der  on  Brazil : 
that  of  San  Javier,  which  lies  on  the  right  l)ank  of  the 
Uruguay  ;  that  of  Piray,  on  the  bank  of  the  Iguaçu,  be- 
tween the  Salto  Grande  (Great  Falls)  of  this  river  and 
its  mouth  in  the  Paraná ;  and  those  of  Monteagudo 
and  Iguazii,  which  are  the  most  Easterly. 

The  boundaries  of  the  last  two  were  thus  described 
in  the  Decree. 


2  66  BK  A  Z/L  IA  X-A  R  GKN  TINE 

"Department  of  Muntea^uclo  (Paggi). — Bouiuled  on 
the  North  by  tlie  mountains;  on  the  South  by  tlie 
river  Uruguay  ;  on  tlie  West  by  the  river  Aearaguay 
in  its  prolongation  as  far  as  the  mountains  of  la  Vic- 
toria ;  and  on  the  East  by  the  river  Pepiry-Guazli. 

"  Department  of  the  Iguazú. — Bounded  on  the 
North  by  the  i-iver  Iguazii;  on  the  West  by  the  moun- 
tains of  la  Victoria  ;  on  the  East  by  the  rivei'  San  An- 
tonio Guaz'a  ;  and  on  the  South  by  the  mountains." 

The  seat  of  the  Government  of  Misiones,  first  estab- 
lished at  Corpus  (San  Mai'tin),  was  afterwards  trans- 
ferred to  Posadas. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  Argentine  maps 
until  1881  always  gave  to  the  Pepiry-Guaçú  of  the 
Brazilians  the  name  of  Pepiíy-Guazú,  and  to  the  Santo 
Antonio,  or  San  Antonio,  sometimes  this  name,  and  at 
othei's  that  of  San  Antonio  Guazi'i. 

As,  however,  this  last  name  can  be  more  particularly 
applied  to  the  river  \vhose  sources  were  discovered  in 
1791  by  the  Spanish  Commissioner  Oyáiívide,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  as  the  Spanisli  Commissioners  of  the 
second  demarcation  assei'ted  that  the  river  named  by 
them  Pequii-í-Guazú  (the  Chapecó  of  the  Brazilians) 
was  the  true  Pepiry  of  the  Treaty  of  1750,  the  Brazilian 
Government  considered,  in  view  of  the  Argentine  pre- 
tension put  forwai'd  in  l>í81,  that  the  Eastern  boun- 
daries laid  down  in  the  Decree  as  those  of  the  Depart- 
meiits  of  Iguazú  and  Monteagudo  might  give  rise  to 
the  intrusion  of  foreign  authorities  into  the  territory 
which  Brazil  occupied  and  still  occupies  to  the  East  of 
the  Pepiry-Guaçú  and  of  the  Santo  Antonio.  It  there- 
fore resolved  to  safeguai-d  its  rights  and  to  propose  the 
opening  of  new  negotiations,  issuing  instructions  to 
that  effect  to  the  Baron  de  Araújo  Goxdoi,  Brazilian 


BOUXDARY   QUESTION.  267 

MiDÍster  at  Buenos-Aires,  who  carried  them  out  by  a 
Note  of  the  2d  June,  1882. 

The  Argeutice  Government  declared  itself  disposed 
to  discuss  the  pending  question,  and,  on  the  29th  July, 
Baeon  de  Aeau.io  Go^^dbi  proposed  that  for  Article  2 
of  the  Treaty  of  1857  the  following  should  be  substi- 
tuted : 

"  The  rivers  Pepiri-Guaçú  and  Santo  Antonio,  of 
Avhich  the  preceding  Article  treats  are  :  the  first,  an 
affluent  which  discharges  itself  into  the  Uruguay,  on 
its  right  or  Northern  bank,  a  little  more  than  a  league 
above  its  Great  Fall,  and  in  latitude  27°  9'  23" ;  and 
the  second,  the  one  on  the  opposite  slope  of  the  water- 
shed and  the  fii'st  important  affluent  which  entei'S  on 
the  Southern  or  left  bank  of  the  Gi-ande  de  Cui'itybaor 
Iguaçu,  above  its  confluence  with  the  Paraná  and  in 
latitude  25°  35'.  Both  have  their  sources  in  the  same 
locality  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain  range  which 
divides  the  watei's  of  the  rivers  Uruguay  and  Iguaçu, 
and  the  two  springs  are  only  about  five  hundred  paces 
one  from  the  other,  between  26°  lu'  and  26°  12'  lati- 
tude ;  the  Pepiri-Guaçíi  I'uiining  in  a  direction  of  15°  S. 
W.,  and  the  Santo  Antonio  of  26°  N.W." 

This  proposal  was  accompanied  by  a  Memorandum, 

The  Minister  for  Foreign  x\ifairs  of  the  Argentine 
Republic,  D^  V.  de  la  Plaza,  replied  by  a  Note  of 
30th  Januai'v,  1883,  and  a  Memorandum  of  the  same 
date,  refusing  the  proposal  and  presenting  that  of  his 
Government  that  the  boundary  should  be  traced  along 
the  Pequirí-Guazú  (Chapecó)  and  by  the  rivei"  on  the 
opposite  slope  of  the  watershed,  whose  sources  Avere 
explored  by  Oyarylde  in  the  year  1791. 

On  the  30th  December,  1884,  the  new  Brazilian  Min- 


208  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

ister  at  Buenos-Aires,  Councillor  Alencar,  delivered  to 
the  Argentine  Ministei-  for  Foreign  Affairs  the  Counter- 
Menioi-audum  of  the  Brazilian  Governnieut,  written  by 
the  ViscouxT  DE  Cabo-Fkio,  and,  in  a  Note  of  that  date, 
showed  that  the  Argentine  Government  had  attributed 
to  the  declarations  made  in  1881  by  Councillor 
Pereira  de  Souza  a  meaning  they  could  not  have  had. 

"  The  military  colonies  of  the  Chapecó  and  of  the 
Chopim,"  says  the  Note,  "  exist,  and  it  is  certain  that 
all  j^ossible  development  has  been  given  them,  but  they 
are  not  the  only  ones.  There  are  others,  all  belono-iuir 
to  a  system  formed  lonir  aQ:o,  without  rejiard  toforei*'U 
countries,  nor  to  questions  with  them  that  may  be 
pending.  And  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  two 
mentioned  colonies  are  not  properly  i^peaking  on 
the  border :  as  regards  Brazil  they  are  in  the  interior, 
because  it  has  an  indisputable  right  to  all  the  territory 
situated  to  the  East  of  the  Rivers  Pepiry-Guaçú  and 
Santo  Antonio. 

"  In  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  there  does 
not  exist  any  document,  official,  confidential,  or  pi-ivate, 
showing  circumstantially  what  passed  between  the 
late  Councillor  Pereira  de  Souza  and  Dr.  Dgjíinguez. 
There  is  only  a  Note  of  that  Minister,  dated  Ai)ril 
Õ,  1881,  refei-ring  to  the  "important  declai-ations " 
the  former  had  made  to  him  on  the  occasion  "of 
the  establishment  of  two  military  colonies  which  His 
Excellency  the  Minister  of  War  proposed  to  found  on 
the  frontier  which  divides  the  Empire  from  the  Ar- 
gentine Republic  between  the  rivers  Iguaçu  and 
Uruguay."  This  document  does  not  enter  into  par- 
ticulars, and  the  reply  of  Sr.  Pereira  de  Souza,  given 
on  the  12th  of  the  same  month,  does   not  contain  one 


BOUNDARY  QUESIIOX.  269 

word   regarding  the  coloDÍes,  and  only  relates  to  the 
projeeteil    uegi^tiations. 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  without  impugning  the 
veracity  of  the  statement  made  by  Sr.  Dominguez  to 
his  Government,  the  Imperial  Government  thinks  that 
the  declarations  of  the  same  Minister  must  be  under- 
stood according  to  the  occurrences  of  the  moment  and 
the  nature  of  thinç^s.  The  news  was  then  current  here 
that  the  Imperial  Government  had  ordered  two  mili- 
tary colonies  to  be  founded  in  the  disputed  territory 
and,  as  the  Brazilian  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  was 
making  arrangements  at  the  time  to  bring  about  a  new 
agreement,  in  order  that  his  fi'iendly  effort  might  not 
fail,  he  declared  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  officers 
charc--ed  with  the  foundation  of  the  colonies  had  been 
ordered.  This  was  evidently  a  step  suited  to  the 
occasion,  aiming  at  a  special  end,  which  was  not 
attained,  had  no  permanent  character,  and  did  not  de- 
prive the  Imperial  Government  of  the  right  of  carry- 
ing out  its  plan  when  the  reason  for  the  delay  should 
cease  ;  and  it  did  carry  it  out  without  the  least  objec- 
tion from  the  Argentine  Government    .    .    ." 

After  demonstrating  that  the  Treaty  of  1857  had 
been  approved  by  the  Argentine  Congress,  the  Note  of 
December  30,  1884,  concludes  as  follows: 

"  i\.s  it  appears  from  this  extract,  D^  Plaza  said  that 
the  acceptance  of  the  proposal  made  by  my  predecessor 
would  be  equal  to  a  motiveless  renunciation  by  the 
Argentine  Government  of  the  right  which  the  Repub- 
lic believes  it  has  over  the  territory  in  question,  and  in 
his  turn  he  proposed  that  taking  the  demarcation  as 
made  by  the  Chapecó,  that  is  to  say,  by  the  Pequiry- 
Guaçú  of  the  Spaniai-ds,  the  latter  should  be  continued 


270  BRAZILIAN-ARGENTINE 

by  the  nearest  river  liaviug  its  source  ou  the  opposite 
slope  of  the  watershed,  that  is  to  say,  by  the  C1k)[)Íiii, 
which  is  the  Santo  iVntonio  of  the  same  Spaniards. 

"  If,  on  its  part,  the  Imperial  Government  accepted 
this  }>ro[)osal,  it  would  also  abandon  its  riirht  to  the 
boundary  constituted  by  the  ti'ue  Pepiry-Guaçú  and 
the  true  Santo  Antonio.     This  it  could  not  do. 

"  In  the  meantime,  the  Imperial  Government,  con- 
vinced of  the  right  of  Brazil  to  the  boundaiy  it  is 
defending,  conscious  of  the  good  faith  Avith  whicb,  on 
its  part,  the  Ai-geutine  Government  disputes  it,  and 
certain  also  that  both  Powers  entertain  tlie  most  sin- 
cere and  cordial  desire  to  solve  the  question,  in  accoi-d- 
auce  with  the  principles  of  justice,  safeguarding  their 
respective  rights,  and : 

"  Considering  that  neither  the  rivers  in  question,  nor 
the  disputed  zone  comprised  by  tliem,  were  at  any  time 
explored  by  Brazilians  and  Argentines  for  the  purpose 
of  making  on  their  own  account  the  explorations  ef- 
fected by  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish  in  the  last 
century  ; 

"  Considering  that  from  this  examination  made  by 
common  accord  and  jointly,  more  light  must  be  thrown 
upon  the  question,  and  desiring  for  its  part  to  give  one 
more  proof  of  the  sincerity  of  its  sentiments  and  of  the 
certainty  of  its  right,  it  has  resolved  to  propose  to  the 
Argentine  Government,  as  it  now  proposes,  that  a  Joint 
Commission  of  competent  persons,  in  equal  numbers, 
be  appointed  by  the  two  Governments,  to  survey  the 
four  i-ivers  Pequiry-Guaçii,  Santo  Antonio,  Cha[)ecó 
and  Chopim,  wbich  the  Ai-gentine  Government  names 
Pepirí-Guazií  and  San  Antonio  Guazd,  and  the  zone 
comprised  between  them,  making  an  accurate   plan  of 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  2/1 

the  rivers  of  the  ^vhole  disputed  zone,  an  idea,  besides, 
suggested  in  substance  to  the  Imperial  Government  by 
D-*-  Ieigoyex  in  1876." 

The  result  of  this  neo^otiation  was  the  Ti'eatv  of 
Se]:)tember    28,    1885,    for   the    survey    of 

■  i-  -r»'        /I  o.  a/-  Treaty  of 

the   rivers   i  epiry-(jruaçu,  feanto    Antonio,  ^gg- 

Chapecó  and  Chopim,  which  was  supposed 

to    be   the    San    Antonio-Guazii    of  Otákvide. 

The  Brazilian- Argentine  Joint  Commis-  survey  by  a 
sion  entered  upon  its  labors  in  1887  and  Braziiian-Argen- 

J-  tine  Joint  Com- 

concluded  them  in  1890.  mission. 

It  ^vas  then  ascertained  that  the  S.  Antonio  Guazii 
of  Oyáevtde  is  the  river  Janojada. 

The  Argentine  Commission  proposed  the  survey  of 
this  river,  and  the  Bi-aziliau  refused  to  consent  to  it, 
because  the  Treaty  and  the  Instructions  of  1885 
designated  the  river  Chopim. 

The  Bi-azilian  Government  settled  the  divergence  by 
accepting  the  interpretation  the  Argentine  Republic 
and  its  Commission  gave  to  the  Treaty. 

The  Report  of  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  pre- 
sented in  1888  to  the  Brazilian  Parliament  thus  refers 
to  tliis  incident : 

"  The  two  Commissions,  after  carrying  out  in  perfect 
harmony  a  great  part  of  the  survey,  gradually  separated 
in  February  and  March  of  the  current  year,  returning 
on  account  of  the  rains  to  this  City  and  to  Buenos- 
Aires,  where  they  occupied  themselves  with  office- 
work. 

"There  ai-ose  between  them  an  important  disagree- 
ment, which  appears  in  a  record  appended  to  the 
present  Report,  and  was  submitted  to  the  decision  of 
the  two  Governments.  It  has  reference  to  the  survey 
of  the   river  S.  Antonio   Gnaçii,  known   as   the  Jan- 


Zj 


BRA  ZIL I A  X-ARGEN  TINE 


o-ada  in  its  lower  course  as  far  as  that  of  tlie  Iguaçu 
into  wliieli  it  ein[)ties  itself. 

''  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  Argentine  Commission 
that  the  said  river  was  to  be  surveyed  by  both,  and  the 
Bi-azilian  Commission  refused  to  do  so  officially  with- 
out the  order  of  the  Imperial  Government,  because, 
among  other  reasons,  it  understood  that  the  Jangada 
was  not  mentioned  in  Article  2  of  the  Treaty,  as  one 
t)f  the  rivers  that  were  to  be  surveyed. 

"The  Imperml  Goveinment  duly  appreciated  the 
scruples  of  its  Commissioners,  but  it  did  not  have  the 
satisfaction  of  agi-eeing  with  them,  and  this  it  declared 
to  the  Argentine  Govei'nment. 

"  The  Treaty  determined  that  besides  the  Pepiry- 
Guaçii  and  the  S.  Antonio,  a  sui'vey  should  be  made 
of  tlie  rivers  Chapecó  and  Chopim,  named  by  the 
Argentines  Pequiry-Guaçú  and  S.  Antonio  Guaçú, 
because,  as  to  the  Chopim,  according  to  the  infoi'ma- 
tion  then  available,  the  two  names  represented  one  and 
the  same  river.  But  from  the  survey  now  made  the 
contrary  was  shown.  The  S.  Antonio  Guaçú  is  dis- 
tinct from  the  Chopim  and  empties  its  waters  into  the 
Iguaçu  about  200  kilometres  East  of  tlie  mouth  of  the 
same  Chopim. 

"  The  circumstance  of  the  names  Chopim  and  Santo 
Antonio  desÍ2;natin<i:  two  distinct  rivers  does  not  dis- 
turV)  what  was  agreed  upon.  The  |)rincipal  fact  is  the 
existence  of  a  river  which  the  Spaniards  began  to  sur- 
vey and  which  they  named  S.  Antonio  Guaçú.  This 
and  the  Pequiry  Guaçú  are  those  which,  as  the 
Argentines  think,  form  the  boundary. 

•'  The  survey  of  the  S.  Antonio  Guaçú   is,  therefore, 


BOUNDARY   QUESTION.  273 

obligatory  for  Brazil,  not  only  as  far  as  the  point 
reached  by  the  survey  of  Oyáevide,  but  over  its  whole 
extent,  as  far  as  its  mouth,  although  this  river  is  partly 
known  under  the  name  of  Jano'ada. 

^'  This  does  not  invalidate  the  question  of  right. 
Whether  the  source  of  the  S.  Antonio  Guaçú  is  on  the 
opposite  slope  of  the  watershed  on  which  is  situated 
the  source  of  the  Chapecó  or  Pequiry-Guaçú,  even 
though  it  may  empty  itself  into  the  Iguavii  far  above 
the  mouth  of  the  Chopim,  it  is  still  certain  that  l^bose 
two  rivers  are  not  the  ones  mentioned  in  the  Treaty  of 
1777.  But,  even  though  it  were  not  so,  the  Santo 
Antonio  Guaçú  must  be  Jointly  surveyed,  because  the 
Treaty  so  determines  and  the  Imperial  Government 
must  loyally  fulfil  what  it  agreed  to. 

"  Besides  the  survey  of  this  river,  which  must  l)e 
made  Jointly  if  the  two  Governments  do  not  accept 
the  survey  carried  out  separately,  the  exploration  of  a 
part  of  the  intermediate  territory  still  remains  to  be 
made.  The  Commissions  must,  therefore,  return  to 
the  disputed  territory." 

The  survey  of  the  Jangada,  or  San  Antonio  Guazii, 
was  made  in  consequence  of  this  decision  by  a  Joint  De- 
marcating Party  led  by  Engineer  Odebiíecht  (Bi-azil) 
and  by  Lieutenant  Motítes  (Argentine  Kepublic). 

Senor  Valeisttin  Vieasoro,  in  a  Repoi't  published 
in  1892,^  recognized  the  loyalty  of  the  action  of  Bi'azil. 

''  The  river  Chopim,"  he  said,  "  disappeared  as  a 
boundary  in  dispute  as  soon  as  it  was  proved  that  it 
is  not  the  San  Antonio  Guazii,  and  as  the  Bi-azilian 
Government,  acting  spontaneously  in  a  spirit  of  truth 

'  Misiones y  Arbitrage  by  Valentin  Virasoro  in  the  pamphlet  La  Cuestion 
de  Alisiones,  a  collection  of  articles  and  monographs  previously  published  in 
the  Bolctin  del  Instituto  Geografteo  Argentino,  Buenos-Aires,  1892,  p.  no. 


274  BRAZlLIAN-ARGENThXE 

and  jiistitv,  consented    to   the  siiivey  as  far  as  the  true 
San  Antonio  Guazi'i  or  Jangada/' 

At  the  beginning  of  1889,  long  l)efore  the  Joint  Com- 
mission  had   ended  its  labors,  the  Ai'gen- 

Argentine  pro-      .         ,f     •    ,  ,     -r>.       it*  j 

osaiforthe  '^"''^  ^Minister  at  Kio  de  Janeiro  proposed 
division  of  the  confidentially  to  Councillor  Rodtiigo  Silva, 
contested  ter-    ^],^j^  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  tlie  fol- 

ntory.  .  ,       . 

lowinsi  draft  for  an  as^reement  : 

"The  Empire  of  Brazil  and  the  Argentine  Repul)lic 
etc., «etc. 

"  Have  agreed : 

ÍÍ  ^st.  ^çy  adopt  as  the  definitive  Ijoundary-line  the 
geometrical  mean-line  between  the  line  claimed  by  tlie 
Empire  of  Brazil,  and  defined  by  the  I'ivers  Pepiry- 
Guassii  and  San  Antonio-Guassii,  and  that  claimed  by 
the  Argentine  Republic,  marked  by  the  rivers  San 
Antouio-guazú  of  Oyárvide  and  Chapecó. 

u  2diy.  j^  jg  ^Q  \yQ  understood  that  the  geometical 
mean-line  referred  to  in -the  preceding  Article  shall  be 
estal)lished  by  a  series  of  points  occu[)ying  eacii  one  the 
centre  of  the  lines  parallel  to  the  Equator  which  cut  the 
boundary-lines  claimed  by  the  two  contracting  parties. 

"  3'i'y-  The  expenses  incuri'ed  in  the  fulfilment  of  this 
Ti-eaty  shall  be  borne  in  equal  parts."  ^ 

Minister  Rodkigo  da  Silva  refused  to  accept  that 
proposal  and  suggested  that  recourse  should  be  had 
to  arbitration  in  case  it  should  not  be  possible  to  come 
to  a  dii'ect  agreement. 

The  negotiations  were  continued  after  June  by 
-r.  , .  , .  Councillor  Diana,  the  successor  to   that 

Treaty  of  Arbi-  . 

tration,  Sept.     Minister,    and,    from     them    resulted   the 
7,  1889.  Treaty  of   Arl)iti'ation  signed    at   Buenos- 

Aires,  September  7,  1889. 

'  The  original  text  of  the  Argentine  proposal,  in  Spanish,  is  presented  in 
\'ol.  II.  nf  this  Statement,  page  26;. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTION.  275 

Some  clays  after  its  ratification  the  Republic  was 
proclaimed  in  Brazil,  and,  at  the  request    ^ 

PI         A  •         Tir'-  T^'       IT         The  division 

of  the  Argentine  31  mister  at  Kio  de  Ja-  ofthecon- 

neiro,  the  Provisional   Government   agreed  tested  terri- 

to  the  division  of  the  contested  territory,  idllofthe 

an  idea  favored    by   the    Government   of  Argentine 

Buenos-Aires  since    1881.'  Government. 

It  has  been  asserted  in  Argentine  documents  that 
the  initiative  as  to  the  projected  division  was  taken  in 
1881  and  1889  by  the  Brazilian  Government. 

The  project  of  1881  will  remove  all  doubts  upon 
that  point,  inasmuch  as  it  is  written  in  Spanish,  and 
the  author  of  that  of  1889,  which  was  attributed  to 
Minister  Diana,  was  an  engineer  who  had  no  share 
in  the  Government.  Minister  Diana  sul)sequently 
affirmed  that  he  had  never  thought  of  such  a  com- 
promise, and  that  he  was  even  convinced  from  what 
the  Argentine  Minister  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  had  said 
to  him,  that  this  point  of  disagreement  was  about 
to  be  removed  by  the  final  acceptance  by  the  Argen- 
tine Republic  of  the  line  of  the  Pepiry-Guaçii  and 
S.  Antonio. 

On  January  25,  1890,  a  Treaty  which  divided  the 
territory  of  Palmas  between  the  two  Contracting 
Parties  was  sis^ned  at  Montevideo  by  the         ^ 

^  .    .  *'  Treaty  of 

representatives  of  the  Provisional  Govern-     Montevideo, 
ment  of  Brazil  and  those  of  the  Argentine  ^^9°- 

Republic. 

In    the  Argentine  Republic   this   solution  was   re- 


'  "  Sr.  DoMlNGUEZ  (i88l)  lost  no  time  in  recommending  his  Government 
to  enter  upon  this  new  course,  thinking  it  possible  to  divide  the  contested  ter- 
ritory between  the  two  Pepiris  by  the  heights  which  separate  the  watersheds  of 
the  two  rivers  from  those  of  the  two  S.  Antonios."  {Report  of  jSg2  of  the 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  presented  to 
Congress,  page  47.) 


276 


BOUND  A  K  1 '   Q  Ut  S  TION. 


ceived  with  c:reat  euthiisiiisin.     In   Brazil, 

Rejected  by  .  ,  i  •  i?    ^i 

the  Brazilian  liowevei*,  it  produced  M  seiitiiiieut  or  the 
Congress.  deepest  grief  aud  raised  unanimous  and 
vehement  protests. 

Thus,  according  to  tlie  phrase  of  an  illustrious 
writer,  the  question  of  the  territory  of  Palmas  passed 
through  the  ixreat  test  of  the  Judo-ment  of  Solomon. 

The  Special  Committee  elected  by  the  Brazilian 
Congress  to  report  upon  the  Treaty  of  Montevideo  was 
of  opinion  that  it  should  be  rejected  and  that  recourse 
should  be  had  to  Arbitration.'  This  Report  was  ap- 
proved at  the  sitting  of  August  10,  1891,  by  142  ayes 
against  5  noes.^ 

In  fulfilment,  therefore,  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaty  of  Se[)tember  7,  1889,  Brazil  and  the  Argen- 
tine Republic  now  have  recourse  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  order  that,  as  Arbi- 
trator, he  may  give  his  award  upon  the  subject  of  the 
existing  controversy. 

Washington,  February  8,  1894. 


'  English  translation,  Vol.  III.,  p.  204  ;  original  text,  IV.,  ly: 
■  Vol.  III.,  211  ;  IV.,  199. 


277 


o  BRAZIL. 

ittiilcstado,  c  os  jiaizcs  liniitrojihes. 


278 


MAP   OF 

SOUTHERN   BRAZIL, 

showing     that     part     of     its     contested     territory 


MAPPA  DO 
BRAZIL  MERIDIONAL, 

ostrando  a   parte   do   seo   território   reclamada 
pela    Republica    Argentina. 


APPENDIX. 


LIST  OF  DOCUMENTS. 

VOL.       PAGE. 

Treaty  of  Madrid,  January  13,  1750: 

English  translation      .......    Ill,        3-23 

Portuguese  text     ........     IV,         3-21 

General  Instructions  to  the  Demarcating  Commis- 
sioners (Treaties  and  Conventions  N?  i,  2,  3, 
4,  and  5,  signed  at  Madrid,  January  17,  and 
April  17,  175 1): 

English  translation       .......     Ill,      25-58 

Portuguese  text IV,       25-53 

The  Map  of  1749,  used  by  the  Plenipotentiaries, 
commonly  called  "  Map  of  the  Courts,"  and 
the  six  authenticated  copies  thereof,  made 
in  1751 : 

English  translation        .......     Ill,       59-63 

Portuguese  text     .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .IV,       54-58 

Special  Instruction  given  on  July  27,  1758,  to 
the  Commissioners  of  the  2d  Demarcating 
Party : 

Translation  of  the  Spanish  text    .....      Ill,  67-74 

Spanish  text IV,  61-67 

Translation  of  the  Portuguese  text  .     .         .         .  .1.  67-73 

Portuguese  text.    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         •      H,  64-69 

Treaty  of  El  Pardo,  February  12,  1761  : 

English  translation       .......     Ill,       77-80 

Portuguese  text    ........     IV,       71-74 

279 


28o  APPENDIX. 

VOL.      PAGE. 

Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  October  i,  1777: 

English  translation HI,     83-104 

Portuguese  text IV,       77-97 

Royal  Instruction  dated  Aranjuez,  June  6,  1778, 
for  the  demarcation  of  boundaries,  given  to 
the  Spanish  Commissioners  : 

English  translation HI,   107-114 

Spanish   text IV,   101-107 

Special  Instructions  for  the  demarcation  of 
boundaries  in  South  America,  proposed  by 
General  Vertiz,  Viceroy  of  the  provinces  of 
the  River  Plate  and  approved  by  Carlos  III., 
King  of  Spain,  January  12,  1779  : 

English  translation Ill,   II5-I34 

Spanish  text IV,   108-126 

Quotation  of  a  Memorandum  presented  to  Carlos 
III.,  of  Spain,  by  Count  de  Floridablanca  : 

English  translation        ; HI,   137-UI 

Spanish  text IV,   129-133 

A  few  paragraphs  of  the  Secret  Instructions 
given  by  Carlos  III.,  on  July  8,  1787,  to  the 
Jun.a  de  Estado  : 

English  translation Ill,   142-145 

Spanish   text IV,   I34-I37 

Brazilian  Memorandum  of  November  26,  1857  : 

English  translation Ill,   149-160 

Original  text IV,   141-151 

Treaty  of  Limits  signed  at  Paraná,  December  14, 
1857  (not  in  force  through  the  ratifications 
not    having  been  exchanged) : 

English  translation Ill,   161-165 

Portuguese  text .     IV,   152-156 


LIST  OF  DOCUMENTS.  28 1 

VOL.       PAGE. 

Approval  of  the  Treaty  of  Limits  of  1857  by  the 
Argentine  Congress  and  correspondence  re- 
lating to  the  exchange  of  ratifications  : 

English  translation Ill,   166-178 

Original  text IV,   157-168 

Treaty  of  Buenos-Aires,  September  28,  1885,  for 
the  survey  of  the  contested  territory  of 
Palmas  : 

English  translation Ill,   181-189 

Portuguese  text IV.   171-179 

Treaty  of  Arbitration,  September  7,  1889  • 

English  translation Ill,   193-197 

Portuguese  text IV,   183-186 

Treaty  of  Montevideo,  January  25,  1890  (rejected 
by  the  Brazilian  Congress),  for  the  division 
of  the  territory  of  Palmas  : 

English  translation Ill,  201-203 

Portuguese  text IV,   1S9-191 

Report  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the  Brazilian 
Chamber  of  Deputies  upon  the  Treaty  of 
Montevideo,  January  25,  1890: 

English  translation Ill,  204-210 

Portuguese  text IV,  192-198 

Rejection   of  the  Treaty  of  January  25,  1890,  \    III.  211-212 
by  the  Brazilian  Congress:  ',    ^^'    199-200 

Summary  of  the  census  of  the  Population  in  1 

1     ^  /T     1-  •  1  TN-   •  •     X     r  T>  I  '    lil-  215-220 

the  Comarca  (Judicial  Division)  of  Palmas,  -,    jy    20''-2o8 

December  31,  1891  :  ' 


LIST  OF  MAPS. 


(All  the  Colored  Maps  are  marked  *. ) 


The  Meridian  Line  of  Demarca- 
tion agreed  upon  by  Portugal 
and  Spain  at  Tordesillas,  June 

7»  H94 

Brazil,    its    contested    territory, 

and  the  bordering  countries*  . 
Map  of  Southern  Brazil,  showing 

that  part  of  its  territory  claimed 

by  the  Argentine  Republic*    . 

First   Map  of  Paraguay  by  the 

Jesuits,  XVIIth  century  . 
Paraguay  by  De  I'lsle,  1703 
Second  Map  of  Paraguay  by  the 

Jesuits,    1722.       Engraved    at 

Rome,  1726 
Augsburg  edition 
Third  Map  of  Paraguay  by  the 

Jesuits,  1732 
Paraguay  by  d'Anville,  1733 
Upper    Uruguay    by   d'Anville 

1/33  .... 

South    America     by    d'Anville 

1748  .... 

Missions  on  the  River  Paraná  and 

Uruguay    by   Quiroga,     1749 

Engraved  1753 

282 


Vol. 

I. 

Pag 

e     16 

ii 

(( 

277 

<c 

(< 

278 

Vol. 

V. 

Vol. 

VI. 

No. 

I 

No. 

I  A 

No. 

2 

No. 

3 

No. 

2  A 

No. 

4 

No. 

3A 

No. 

5 

No. 

4A 

No. 

6 

No. 

5A 

No. 

7 

No. 

8 

No. 

6  A 

No. 

9 

LIST  OF  MAPS. 


283 


The  Map  used  by  the  Plenipo- 
tentiaries of  Portugal  and 
Spain  in  the  negotiation  of  the 
Treaty  of  1750,  made  at  Lis- 
bon, dated  1 749,  and  commonly 
called  "  Map  of  the  Courts  "    . 

The  above  Map  with  several 
superpositions  made  under  the 
direction  of  M.  Emile  Levas- 
seur,  of  the  Institut  de  France 

One  of  the  copies  of  the  Map 
dated  1749,  made  in  175 1  at 
Lisbon      .         .         .         .         . 

Spanish  Map  drawn  by  Paloma- 
res(i75o?)        .         .         .         . 

The  same  on  a  larger  scale 

Spanish  Map  of  1749  published 
by  Borges  de  Castro 

Paraguay  by  Bellin,  1756     . 

Spanish  Map,  probable  date,  1760 

Map  of  the  frontier  surveyed  in 
1759  and  1760,  dated  S.  Nicolas 
April  8,  1760    . 

Spanish  Map  by  Millau,  1768 

Another  by  the  same  Millau 
1770  .... 

South  America  by  Sylveira  Pei 
xoto  (Portuguese),  1768  . 

South  America  by  Captain  Mon 
tanha  (Portuguese),  1773 

South  America  by  Olmedilla 
1775,  the  map  used  by  the 
Spanish  Plenipotentiary  in  the 
negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of 
1777 

Map  of  Paraguay,  by  Felix  de 
Azara,  dated  1787 


Vol.  V. 


No.  10 


No. 
No. 


bis 


No.  II'." 

No.  12 
No.  14 


No. 

No. 


13 

15' 


No.  16 


No. 


17* 


Vol.  VI. 


No.    7  A* 

No.    8  A* 
No.    9  A 


No.  10  A 
No.  1 1  A 


No.  12  A* 
No.  13  A 

No.  14  A 

No.  15  A 

No.  16  A 


No.  17  A 
No.  18  A 


284 


APPENDIX. 


Captainship  of  S.  Paulo  by  Mon- 
tezinho, 1791-1792 

The  contested  territory.  By  the 
Spanish  Commissioners  after 
the  second  demarcation. 
Drawn  by  Cabrer     . 

The  contested  territory.  By 
Miguel  Lastarria  (Spanish) 
1804  .... 

Rio  Grande  do  Sul  and  Monte- 
video, by  Chagas  Santos 
(Brazilian)         .         .         .         . 

Province  of  S.  Pedro,  by  the 
Viscount  de  S.  Leopoldo  (Bra- 
zilian), 1839      .         .         .         . 

Argentine  Map  dated  1863 

Argentine  Map  dated  1865 

Map  of  the  contested  territory 
surveyed  by  the  Brazilian  Ar- 
gentine Joint  Commission. 
Drawn  by  the  Brazilian  Com- 
mission    .         .         .         .         . 

The  same  Map,  drawn  by  the 
Argentine  Commission    . 

The  ofificial  Map  of  1749  (No. 
10)  compared  with  the  Span- 
ish Map  of   1760  (No.  14) 

The  official  Map  of  1749  (No.  10) 
and  the  Map  of  the  Brazilian- 
Argentine  Joint  Commission 
(No.  20) 

The  Map  of  the  ist  Portuguese 
and  Spanish  Joint  Commis- 
sion, dated  1760  (No.  13),  and 
that  of  the  Brazilian- Argentine 
Joint  Commission  (No.  20) 

The  Spanish  Map  of  Olmedilla 


Vol. 

V. 

Vol.  VI. 

No.  19  A 

No. 

18 

No.  20  A 

No. 

19 

No.  21  A 

No.'22  A 

^No.^23>^: 

No.  24  A! 

No. 

20 

No.  25  A* 
No.  26  A 

No. 

21* 

No. 

22* 

No. 

23* 

LIST  OF  MAPS. 


285 


(No.  16)  compared  with  that 
of  the  Brazilian -Argentine 
Joint  Commission  (No.  20) 
The  Map  of  1749  (No.  10)  com- 
pared with  the  Map  by  the 
Spanish  Commissioners  after 
the  second  Demarcation  (No. 

18) 

The  Map  of  the  Spanish  Com- 
missioners after  the  second 
Demarcation  (No.  18)  and  that 
of  the  BraziUan  -  Argentine 
Joint  Commission  (No.  20)    . 

Fac-simile  of  several  water-falls 
represented  in  Maps  of  the 
XVIIIth  century     . 

Mouth  of  the  River  Pepiry- 
Guaçú       .  .  .  .         . 

Mouth  of  the  Chapecó,  called 
Pequirí-Guazú  by  the  Span- 
iards after  1789 

Section  of  the  Uruguay  between 
the  Guarita  (the  2d  Uruguay- 
Pita)  and  the  Pepiry-Guaçú     . 

River  Iguaçu  from  the  mouth  of 
the  S.  Antonio  to  the  Great 
Falls         .         . 

Itinerary  of  Cabeza  de  Vaca 

Paraguay  by  W.  J.  Blaeuw  (itin- 
erary of  Cabeza  de  Vaca) 

Map  of  the  Judicial  Division 
(Comarca)  of  Palmas,  in  the 
Brazilian  State  of  Paraná,  of 
the  Argentine  Gobernacion  of 
Misiones,  and  of  a  part  of  the 
Brazilian  State  of  Rio  Grande 
do    Sul,  sJioiving  the   territory 


Vol.  V. 

Vol.  VI. 

No.  24* 

No.  25* 

No.  26* 

No.  27 

No.  28 

No.  27  A 

No.  28  A 

No.  29 

No.  30 

No.  31* 

No.  32 

286 


APPENDIX. 


claimed  by  the  Argentine  Re- 
public. DraiK'n  up  imdcr  the 
supervision  of  the  Brazilian 
Special  Mission  at  Washington 
by  Rear-Admiral  Guillobel 


Vol.  V. 


Vol.  VI. 


No.  29  A* 


NON-fJRCULATING  RFAD'NG  TENTER 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •   Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


:i 

IS 

1 

1 
i 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITi 


D     000  007  328 


B(J 


